I just posted this comment at the Nashville Scene.  I just got back into town after taking the kids out for the weekend to a large amusement park in California (no, the other one), to splash around, try to stay cool, eat lots of unhealthy food, and generally have fun.  Just like all extreme-right-wing Islamophobic extremists are wont to do when not mongering fear.

Jack Silverman said:

"Imagine that! Right-wing extremists grasping onto one tangential point having little or nothing to do with my central argument, then obsessing over it to divert attention from the flimsiness of their own argument."

Jack, Jack, Jack.  Right-wing extremists?  If you say so, you're the self-appointed expert.  But I must tell you that I voted for Barack Obama in the general election, Hillary Clinton in the primary, and have voted Democratic ever since I was old enough to vote.  I am pro-abortion-rights, pro-gay-rights, pro-gay-marriage, pro-universal-healthcare, pro-womens'-rights, pro-free-speech, pro-religious-tolerance, anti-war-in-Iraq, and so on.  Which is exactly why I am ... against Islam.

Islam is the viewpoint of a 7th Century paedophilic, misogynist, looting, raping, slave-taking warlord, (and I can back each of those terms up with quotes from the holy Qur'an and the ahadith) codified for eternity, with no mechanism for a Reformation such as what Christianity went through.  Islam is what it is, and it is not subject to changing values as society develops over time.  Mohammad makes GWB look like a card-carrying ACLU/NAACP/NOW member by comparison.

Here is my prediction:  One day, it may be 1 year from now, or 10, but one day you  will come to realize (because of future events, or maybe even because despite yourself you will begin to investigate what Islam actually teaches) that you have been defending a belief system that stands against everything you believe in.  In your desire to be open-minded and tolerant, you have supported a fascist belief system that stones gays to death, beats women for going in public without being covered head-to-toe, encourages forced marriage (i.e. rape) of pre-teen girls, and so on.  Think of me then, Jack.  I won't say "I told you so."  I just happened to figure it out before you did, but many others figured it out before I did.  But the day will come, because Islam will not change for you or anyone else, it will not swerve.  Investigate what the "Gates of Ijtihad" are, and why they are important.

And now on to your main point (I wouldn't want to be accused of ignoring your main point in this post), that I was grasping on to one tangential point etc.  I don't know how you do it, but you've got it exactly backwards again.  Here are some quotes:

http://www.tennessean.com/article/20090530/NEWS01/905300331/1001/NEWS
"The group's Web site lists a Nashville mailing address, but it does not include a description of the group's purpose or mission."

http://www.rantburg.com/poparticle.php?D=2009-05-30&ID=270832
"The group's Web site lists a Nashville mailing address, but it does not include a description of the group's purpose or mission."

http://www.etaiwannews.com/etn/news_content.php?id=963415&lang=eng_news
"The New English Review's Web site lists a Nashville mailing address, but it does not include a description of the group's purpose or mission."

http://www.thedailytimes.com/article/20090531/NEWS/305319965/-1/RSS%26rssfeed=RSS
"The New English Review's Web site lists a Nashville mailing address, but it does not include a description of the group's purpose or mission."

And of course, some words that might sound familiar:
http://thesop.org/index.php?article=16351
"What is the New English Review, you ask? I`m still scratching my head on that one, too. There`s no discernible mission statement or "about us" page..."

(Thanks to Mary Jackson for compiling this list)

In other words, the media is simply parroting the same lines, over and over.  They are grasping onto one tangential point having little or nothing to do with New English Review's central argument, and obsessing over it as if it has any significance whatsoever.  Instead of putting some effort into investigating, let alone trying to rebutt, the writings at the New English Review, they (or should I say you) are acting as if this is some sign of hidden malevolence.

"New English Review, they're comin' to gitcha!"

As for what your central argument was in your original post, I'm not sure what it was.  That Islam is not responsible for Islamically-justified terrorist attacks, and that New English Review should not be allowed to have a meeting in Nashville?  Unfortunately for you, our gathering went along quite nicely.  The speakers were fabulous, and I met some fascinating people from across the globe who are all well-educated about Islam.

I'll cross-post this at New English Review, since most NER readers, like me, don't often read the Nashville Scene, except for the rare occasion when Rebecca Bynum is kind enough to provide a link.

Oh, BTW, I don't want to insult the other writers at New English Review by giving the impression that they all share my liberal views.  I speak for myself, and so do they.
 

(Don't miss the comments from Rebecca, Mary, and John!)

UPDATE: After four attempts since last night, my comment is still not showing up at the Nashville Scene, while others' comments are.  Typical of the type of free and open conversation about Islam that we are allowed to have in the West.  What are you so afraid of, Jack?

UPDATE: The post not appearing was due to technical issues.  Jack Silverman manually pushed it through, and the post now appears.