Sam Harris makes mention of this when he says,
"It is taboo in our society to criticize a persons religious faith... these taboos are offensive, deeply unreasonable, but worse than that, they are getting people killed. This is really my concern. My concern is that our religions, the diversity of our religious doctrines, is going to get us killed. I'm worried that our religious discourse- our religious beliefs are ultimately incompatible with civilization."
It is the willingness to address taboo due to founded worry in the actions of believers that is "new" in "New Atheism". When I investigated Harris's arguments I recognized I agreed with this and wondered why I called myself religious.
Andrew Sullivan, a gay Roman Catholic political conservative (I wonder if the accidents of the Eucharist and material dualism of transubstantiation makes one proud of such incoherent titles), tries to make a case for the defense of faith as distinct from religion by linking to an Economist article decrying the British Humanist Society's campaign to get the non-religious to report with honesty their non-belief.
He seems to only reinforce the deep entrenchment of the taboo against religious criticism. The article seems to suggest that there is a form of bullying even in the most mild form of suggesting that non-belief in one's childhood religion is in reality non-belief. It isn't. It is an invitation to honesty and fact.
The fact that an atheist journalist would dismiss the distinction seems very much evidence of a need to reinforce taboos and It is worrying.
In a related article, the reason this type of acquiescence to taboo is troubling can be seen in the actions of the Republican party and their committed anti-science efforts with legislative power.
Not criticizing privileged myth encourages ignorance and pretending that religion and faith are somehow distinct is dishonest.