Church Bells Violation of Noise Ordinance?
Ok, so each city is different, but in the city of Eau Claire, Wisconsin there is no ordinance that protects Church bells from person a violation of noise ordinance. They go sour all day at multiple locations and can be heard throughout the city at irregular intervals. The city attorney, after speaking to me, issued a identify to the police department to not enforce and issue citations to churches who are in violation of the ordinance. How do you feel something like it? If church bells in your city were not protected and were surrounded by excessive volume, use, and were stationed at multiple locations throughout city would you feel it was a defensible complaint? Would you feel like a "good guy" or "right girl" by not enforcing the law?
Best Answer:
Well, people enjoy a right to privacy. But I think the right to religious freedom ought to be more important. After all, will they outlaw public preaching because it offend? Nope, I think restricting such would just be silly.
I'd infiltrate the church and cut the ropes used to ring them... I'd go on up the chain of command -- keep climbing until someone recognize the claim. News networks like this kind of stuff too
After Employment Division v. Smith, a city has no duty to trade name religious exceptions to neutral laws of general applicability. So from a officially recognized standpoint, there is no Free Exercise problem. From the city attorney's perspective, I would be concerned about selectively enforcing city ordinance. A non-church party who has the noise ordinance enforced against it will be capable of make the argument that the city acted arbitrarily and capriciously by selectively enforcing its ordinances. It could also even bump up Establishment Clause issues by preferring religious noise-makers over non-religious noise-makers.
Sometimes you have to cause an issue of it- petition your neighbors and present this to the city attorney. Call a TV station. A lone voice is seldom heard.
