There is no difference. Both should be protested against.
The world is divided into extremist forms of religion to anti religion and both are irrational and pathetic because both are extreme.
The only difference is only one is considered extreme and the other is masked under liberation. You cannot liberate people from a value system they identify with and you're in no position to. Not unless it knocks on your door. Plus, it never works. History is evidence of this.
The second people talk about eradicating the spread of religion in the western world is when they take away from already disenfranchised voices. When they talk about it in the Eastern world it does in fact liberate those forced to live under oppressive laws.
The two can both be true at the same time and they are.
I don't care how disliked religion is, people care about it. I know some of my ancestors got killed because of it to avoid its progression and I know they live with this trauma to this very day.
I also know the Muslim world is stuck in the past and should be challenged from the grassroots.
This homogeneous world view of Muslims doesn't help evolve anything because they have separate battles. I see people do this way too often and it's annoying.
Not many can or even want to discern between moral and immoral because their judgment is clouded with militant thinking. Religious thinking can be very militant. We shouldn't pander to it. Nor should you sway so far the opposite end where people simply living their lives are demonised. Especially in countries where the effects of imperialism are still concerned which in the case of France, it is.
