XPost: rec.outdoors.national-parks, rec.backcountry, or.general   
   XPost: seattle.general   
   From: Cgray2@kc.pb.rr.com   
      
   On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 21:08:22 GMT, claudel  wrote:   
      
   > In article <10pnec5dhcu4s0e@corp.supernews.com>,   
   > gatt  wrote:   
   >>   
   >> "claudel"  wrote in message news:cng8ph$ch6   
   >>   
   >>> Personally, I have no problem with the Muezzin giving the call to   
   >>> prayer,   
   >>> but I must have missed the part in the Constitution that guarantees the   
   >>> right to electronic amplification.   
   >>   
   >> Is there a part that prohibits it?   
   >>   
   >   
   > Generally, that would be local noise ordinances, if any.   
   >   
   > There is nothing in the US Constitution that would override   
   > any such local ordinances.   
   >   
   Unless one could cobble together a convincing case for amplification's   
   necessity in the practice of the religion, and you need not make the case   
   that damn strong.  Remember the profoundly stupid peyote case had a bare   
   majority, and they accepted the government's arguments for the necessity   
   of the drug war.   
      
   > But you probably already knew that.   
   >   
   But you probably already knew that, too.   
      
   --   
   Lane Gray   
   And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed. Gen   
   2:25   
   remove the .lead from my address   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)