Michigan Muslim decision
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
Re: Michigan Muslim decision
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
Re: Michigan Muslim decision
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, you 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
Re: Michigan Muslim decision
The ACLU of Michigan put out the following press release on April 30: Press Statement Regarding "Call to Prayer" in Hamtramck Kary Moss, Executive Director April 30, 2004 In the past week, the ACLU of Michigan has received hundreds of call and emails from around the country from people asking our position on the amended Hamtramck noise ordinance (No. 434) passed by the City Council. The change in the ordinance occurred in response to a request that the City allow a Muslim call to prayer five times a day. We applaud the City for attempting to accommodate religious speech and there are ways that they can do it in a constitutional manner. The ACLU is a strong advocate of both religious freedom and the separation of church and state. We believe that government should remain neutral in matters of religion. It must not suppress the free exercise of religion nor may it promote religion over non-religion. It is because of the separation of church and state, not in spite of it, that Americans enjoy such a degree of religious freedom unknown to the rest of the world. And Americans take full advantage of their freedom: The United States is home to more than 1500 different religions, with more than 360,000 churches, synagogues and mosques. Balancing these important constitutional rights is tricky: In an effort to be accommodating to members of the Muslim faith, the City has tried to make it lawful for a mosque to broadcast the call to prayer five times a day which would not have been possible under the original noise ordinance. That ordinance, which we also believe has its own constitutional problems, makes it unlawful "for any person to create, assist in creating â any excessive, unnecessary or unusually loud noise, or any noise which either annoys, disturbsâ." The new amendment says: "The City shall permit âcall to prayer,â âchurch bellsâ and other means of announcing religious meetings to be amplified between the hours of 6am and 10pm for a duration not to exceed five minutes." (emphasis added). The city must allow for reasonable "accommodation" of religious speech, as it would for other forms of _expression_, but it cannot single out any religious speech â whether Christian, Muslim, Jewish or other -- for favored treatment over other speech protected by the First Amendment. To solve this dilemma, make the original ordinance constitutional, and to accommodate the needs of Muslims, Christians, and members of other faiths, the City should fix the original ordinance and create what are called "reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions." These restrictions need to equally apply to other non-religious protected speech. The City can, for example, limit the hours, duration and maximum noise level, in which calls to prayer and ringing of church bells are permissible. It should do so by adopting specific neutral criteria that covers both religious and non-religious noise. The maximum level of sound permitted under the ordinance should be scientifically measurable and not subjectively based. To reiterate, the City has done its best to be sensitive to the needs of the community. It has, unfortunately, gone too far but it is a problem that needs to be corrected in the interests of all those who live in Hamtramck. == Art Spitzer ACLU Washington DC ___ 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
And speaking of Michigan ...
I'm happy to call attention to the following case, reported yesterday (May 12), in which the ACLU of Michigan represented the plaintiff: Mich. School Region Settles Yearbook Case STERLING HEIGHTS, Mich. (AP) - A school district agreed as part of a legal settlement to apologize to a high school valedictorian whose yearbook quote was removed because it was a Bible verse. Abby Moler, a 2001 graduate, was among students asked to offer their thoughts for Stevenson High School's yearbook. Her entry included the verse, Jeremiah 29:11: ```For I know the plans I have for you,' declares the Lord, `plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.''' School officials told Moler at the time that her quote was deleted because of its religious nature. The Michigan chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union announced the settlement Tuesday. Utica Community Schools officials declined to comment. The ACLU said that under the terms of the settlement, the school district agreed to place a sticker with Moler's original entry in copies of the yearbook on file at the high school; ordered current yearbook staff to not censor other religious or political speech; to train its staff on free speech and religious freedom issues; and to write Moler a letter of regret. Moler, who did not seek money as part of her lawsuit, said she fought the case because she wanted to shed light on an issue that was misunderstood in public schools. ``I'm thrilled,'' said Moler, a college student who plans to become a teacher. ``We got everything we asked for. I received a wonderful education from Utica schools and now that I'm entering the teaching profession, I wanted to do my part in maintaining the excellence in education.'' .c The Associated Press ___ 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
