Our great public wellfare system including healthcare, pensions etc. are called Rhine-Capitalism for a reason. In fact our conservatives, the Christian Democrats build it.
What these people call "socialism" was build by the German religious conservatives (admittedly to keep the social democrats and unions from gaining even more power), which might explain why we keep laughing so hard at Fox News Fuckwits calling Germany a socialist country.
Just don't forget that it wasn't easy for us to hem in religion. It's not like the churches were okay with becoming irrelevant. They got dragged into the age of enlightenment by their hair, kicking and screaming and fighting against progress with all their might. We tamed that tiger, but it still remembers its claws and it is still a dangerous beast.
Also please don't forget the huge amount of influence the churches still have on German politics. Public Broadcasting has representatives of the churches in their Broadcasting Councils, the two churches continue to be some of the biggest lobbying-groups with explicit offices connecting them directly to the government. You can't party and dance in the street on a Good Friday, Public broadcasting is not allowed to air "Monty Python's Life of Brian" on Good Friday, and even public screenings by secular groups are illegal.
Yes, faith is in and off itself detrimental to our society. Religiosity is a strong detrimental force, a mind-virus, a meme that damages the ability to clearly perceive reality.
But just like people who are infected with an infectious virus aren't bad, not all religious people are automatically bad people. I don't think they are good because they are religious, but that doesn't mean they are not good or not religious. So let us not fall into the same absolutist thoughts as the fervent deniers of secular goodness.
Look at a piece of paper. Mark two points on it that are a good distance apart. Travel can only happen along the surface of the paper. When it's flat, your time of travel depends on the distance between the two points on that paper.
Now dap a spot of glue next to one of the points and fold the paper in such a way that the other point comes to rest close to that glue. Wait for it to bind and then spread the paper a little without breaking the glue. That glued point is a wormhole, a place where two points of that flat 2D universe touch despite not being next to each other. Travel from point A to point B is now a shorter distance thanks to the wormhole. But there is no way in which the paper universe can be described as flat anymore.
Or think of a papermache ball, that's also made from paper but if you travel long enough in one direction, you'll end up where you started. Because it isn't flat.
Now our universe is 3D not 2D, but from a higher dimensional perspective it has the same prooerties of flatness as that 2D paper has for us.
I don't know where you live, but holy cow dude, I hadn't watched a single english Star Trek Episode until Lower Decks, everything before that I watched in perfectly dubbed german. Because we dub freaking everything and german dubbing is high quality and very lip-sync so you can go all your live watching basically only Hollywood series and movies and don't hear a single word of english if you don't want to.
Race doesn't exist in human biology. Genetically a caucasian could be closer to an aborigine than another caucasian, what we perceive as race are relatively unimportant and tiny parts of our genetic makeup.
However, race exists as a signifier in social studies, because people experience the world and are treated differently when they have different race-perception. For example black men driving expensive cars will be pulled over more frequently. Hence race exists as a social concept because people treat it like it exists in more than just that.
No, see when he says "a fairer distribution of global benefits" that needs to start with distributing ukrainian benefits to russian oligarchs obviously!
“Our future is being shaped by a struggle, a struggle between the global majority in favor of a fairer distribution of global benefits and civilized diversity and between the few who wield neocolonial methods of subjugation in order to maintain their domination which is slipping through their hands,” he said.
I mean, he's not factually wrong, just framing it in reverse. Russia is indeed trying to colonize Ukraine to maintain their dominion which is slipping through their hands. It's just not using neocolonial methods but good old armed conquest.
And the people in favor of a fairer distribution of global benefits aren't the people he's thinking of. I mean it's also clearly not the US, but "taking what Ukraine has and giving it to Russian Oligarchs" is also not a fairer distribution.
If the British owned the colonies how are American claims to the land valid?