Which is better - religious fanatic or atheist barbarian?

Students protesting for genuine democracy in Hong Kong were supposedly beaten up by thugs and triad gang members. What's the big deal? If you protest against politicians in any country they will beat you up. China is a fascist state where parents protesting against melamine in baby milk were beaten up but what about the supposed bastions of democracy, the US and Britain. Occupy Wall Street supporters were beaten up by New York Police baboons in 2011 while the British use of the controversial ' kettling ' has been found justifiable by the European Court of Human Rights. The Chinese are a peculiarly obedient race who kowtow to their leaders, like we do to our gods. For a country which claims to have been civilised thousands of years ago it is strange that China never had a dominant religion. It had Taoism and Confucianism which teach ancestor worship, obedience and harmony but no supreme being who was superhuman and omnipotent. With no perfect deity to look up to the Chinese worship their leaders, previously their emperors and presently the Communist Party. Western journalists maybe drooling at the thought of President Xi Jinping having sleepless nights over the Hong Kong protests but on the mainland people are dismissive or downright hostile to the protesters. The lack of a Creator who loves all his creatures removes the fear of his wrath or the pangs of conscience at causing pain to any animal. This is probably why the Chinese eat anything that moves or use them in Chinese medicines, leading to many species being in danger of becoming extinct. Their foreign policy is based on aggression towards all. They are picking fights with all their neighbors, including India, pushing them towards a united opposition against themselves. If they are barbaric towards us, they are no better, perhaps worse, to their own people. Not having a God they have no relationship with nature which is showing in the massive pollution of their cities and rivers. People do protest against industrial pollution in places but not because sympathy to animals and plants but because of fears for their own safety. Opposition to the supremacy of the Communist Party is fiercest among Tibetans, who are Buddhist, and in the Xinjiang province where the majority is Muslim. Unlike forced conversion practiced by Muslim and Christian invaders the Chinese have no religion to convert to so they are trying to change the hostility of the locals towards them by changing history. Perhaps the destruction of China lies in its economy. If that tanks there will be nothing to hold them together. We fervently hope so. So is it better to have religious fanatics like the Islamic State or atheist barbarians like the Chinese? Both seem equally destructive, don't they, Prof Richard Dawkins?