a) I am of the opinion that the moslem call to prayer is a form of preaching, and thus proselytizing (sp?), you are not. You equate the words to church bells; in which case you are wrong.
b) because you do not see the prosylization angle, you do not see this as a religious arguement, as well as a property rights argument. You miss the important fact that islam is as much an ideology as it is a religion. By islams own actions, anything that goes on concerning a moslem is a religious argument.
Only part of your last statement I have issue with is:
When you're allowed to shoot Jehova's Witnesses on sight, then I'll agree there's an absolute right not to hear anything religious within your household.
In some parts of the backwoods of Missouri it is legal to shoot them one sight:-)
Seriously, though, I do have the right to tell them to leave, no matter what their message. By not banning the calls to prayer in their current state, the city council has taken that right away from property owners. They are forced, by law, to listen to the message that the moslems send out.
So, we not only have a loud noise that neighbors have to contend with (property rights) but you have a local government establishing, through law, a single religion's right to come into a person's home, or property, and preach their message. If the moslems were simply chiming bells 5 times a day, the home owners wouldn't have such a compelling argument against the calls to prayer.
We're really arguing minutae now, but at least we both agree the request for the waiver was wrong, as well as its granting by the council.