Hmm ... I think you could make a stronger point if you had used the example of the brand of Islam espoused by Islamic terrorists in the US vs. Falun Gong in Chi

Hmm ... I think you could make a stronger point if you had used the example of the brand of Islam espoused by Islamic terrorists in the US vs. Falun Gong in China. Both are religions or at least quasi-religions, both are hunted and suppressed by the state. I think it's clear that the state in the US and China go about this task differently, and fundamentally I think it's because in the US the state recognizes rights but in China the state bestows rights. For example, even though religious liberty is a recognized right enshrined in the constitution, it can, and is, overridden on occasion if the state has a "legitimate public concern." In China, there is no need to dance around the issue of liberty or define what constitutes "legitimate public concern." The state can, and does, simply act. But more practically, in the US you usually have some recourse that is built into the system of governance. The US separates the state's powers (executive, legislative, and judicial) to allow for some recourse. So, if the executive branch makes a decision to override religious liberty in favor of what it deems to be "legitimate public concern," it has to defend its interpretation and balance of the competing rights claims in (at least) 1) the court (defending its interpretation of a law or use of executive order) and 2) the public square (else the next election cycle can oust the current party). China, on the other hand, doesn't need to consult its citizens or worry too much about their opinion (unless it acts so egregiously that it causes violent revolt). There are no liberties unless the state gives them to you, so unwarranted imprisonment, torture, and summary execution are all permitted. Guantanamo Bay style prison/camps are the norm and the public has no recourse.