There was a revealing little anecdote on Andrew Sullivan’s blog today. Sullivan reveals that a young Muslim student was ‘reduced to tears’ when he used the term ‘Islamo-Fascism’. Apparently, she felt ‘attacked’ as a Muslim. Well, as Sullivan says, this is to miss the point. His use of the term is to distinguish more moderate Muslims from their extremist brethren. To be fair, we don’t know, of course, the full details of the discussion, but it’s also revealing that this student’s reaction to a perceived attack on her religion appears to have been to whine and to weep. It’s a reflection of the exquisite sensitivity of the age (and its intellectual inadequacy) that robust debate on ‘religious’ matters seems increasingly under threat. Anyone in this country is, as he or she should be, free to practice his or her religion, whatever it may be, but that does not mean that that the basic tenets of that belief (or unbelief, for that matter) should be immune from criticism, free and open discussion and even ridicule. Don’t like what people are saying about your creed? Well, stop playing the victim, and argue back.