----- Original Message -----
...... Church bells do not
generally chime for a long stretch five times every day; if they did, you can
bet most residents, Christians included, would object.
Neither does the call to prayers. And
whether you find the call to prayers more annoying than church bells seems to be
a matter of opinion and cultural taste. As someone who appreaciate
diversity, I like both.
David E.
Guinn
Sounds like the slippery slope consequences you imagine
would simply result in more speech. Hardly troubling, unless one has
something to fear from hearing different ideas
expressed.
Derek L. Gaubatz
Senior Legal Counsel
The Becket Fund for Religious
Liberty
1350 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite
605
Washington D.C. 20036
202 955-0095 phone
202 955-0090
fax
Thanks. But suppose the permission to the
muezzins was indeed an exemption from the noise ordinance, and suppose
some mean old atheists, out of sheer spitefulness, in retaliation for
the loss of peace and quiet, insisted on an exemption from the noise
ordinance for chanted calls to reason, enlightenment, progress, and
moderation? Five times a day, from a huge donated tower to be built
especially for the purpose? And suppose ~ church bells being
insufficiently verbal and expressive ~ missionizing Christian bible-beaters
insisted on an exemption from the noise ordinance so that five times a
day they could harangue us about brimstone and hellfire from a fleet of
donated trucks with megaphones? Is it possible given the Capitol
Square case that we can preserve peace and quiet? Louise
At 02:10
PM 5/13/04, Doug Laycock wrote:
This is private
speech; failure to regulate is not establishment. The imam at least
claims this is not even an exemption from some noise ordinance or the
like; the loudspeaker was already legal and the amendment is
clarifying. If he is wrong about that and it is an exemption, of
course the exemption would have to be sect neutral. I think it
should have to be neutral as between religious and political speech.
But it does not have to be neutral as between speech and other sources of
noise.
And of course the
city does not have to broadcast Christian or Jewish messages; it need only
refrain from interfering with them. And I would be surprised if it
has interfered with them. Church bells are designed to be widely
heard for the same purpose, they were not illegal in Hamtramck.
At
01:33 PM 5/13/2004 -0500, Louise Weinberg wrote:
I find the below message
somewhat disturbing. The thought of having amplified Muezzins five
times a day calling to prayers in my own residential community is
disturbing. My neighbors and I would be forced repeatedly to talk over
or stop our ears against intrusive chanted messages from a faith we do
not share. I fail to see why a town government in America, even
one in which a majority of the population is Moslem, should be allowed
to impose religious harangues on the minority of its residents who
happen not to be Moslems. It is true that these harangues are
customary in Islamic traditions, but it is the prayers that are a pillar
of Islam, not the calls to prayer. Once having made such an
"accommodation," does the town then have to broadcast immediately before
or after each muezzin call the Hebrew chant, "Hear O Israel, the Lord
thy God, the Lord is one?" Will an amplified shofar have to be
blown five times a day? How about The Lord's Prayer? And
what noise will accommodate the atheists? Unless the atheists are
allowed to summon their listeners to reason at least five times a day,
why isn't all this holy racket an establishment of
religion?
At 08:07 AM 5/13/04, Stuart BUCK wrote:
An interesting law out of
Hamtramck, Michigan. It apparently amends the noise ordinance
there to allow loudspeakers to broadcast Muslim calls to prayer 5
times per day. Story here: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-mosque6may06,1,4014143.story?coll=la-headlines-nation or
here: http://www.freep.com/news/locway/call8_20040508.htm
Best, Stuart
Buck
_________________________________________________________________ Best
Restaurant Giveaway Ever! Vote for your favorites for a chance to win
$1 million! http://local.msn.com/special/giveaway.asp
_______________________________________________ To
post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe,
unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw _______________________________________________ To
post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe,
unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Douglas
Laycock University of Texas Law School 727 E. Dean Keeton
St. Austin, TX
78705 512-232-1341
(voice) 512-471-6988
(fax)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________ To
post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe,
unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Sidley Austin Brown & Wood LLP mail server made the following
annotations on 05/14/2004, 10:32:56
AM ---------------------------------------------------------------------
This
e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or
confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail
and any attachments and notify us immediately.
_______________________________________________ To post, send
message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change
options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
|