Why they fold ?

How far can we reel in religion to political discourse? -- Is the question of the hour. The ensuing squabble would be that religion has from the days yore, been used to mobilize voters when the representatives on the right who use it are actually unsympathetic to the underlying problems. While we are at it : is it justifiable that liberal outfits adorn intolerance to a level far less liberal than their façade ?

For the matter at hand: in a multi-ethnic, multi-faceted society such as ours, bringing morality and religion into politics does carry definite risks. But these risks are inevitable in democratic politics. Liberalists in recent decades have made the blunder of yielding to religious conservatives, a cartel on some of the most intoxicating sources of political argument.

While it’s true that some people use religion acrimoniously, it’s also the truth that, on many political problems, it’s not possible to be nonaligned on the underlying moral question. I think liberals should slot in rather than avoid the moral and religious fervours that citizens bring to public life—whether the issue is abortion, same-sex marriage, poverty, health care, or the environment.

A politics of moral commitment is not only a more rousing superlative than a politics of evasion ,It is also a more promising basis for a just social order.

A stout unrestricted rendezvous with our moral incongruities could offer a stronger, basis for reciprocated respect. Rather than avoiding the moral and religious fervours that our associate citizens bring to community life, we should attend to them more unswervingly—sometimes by challenging and contesting them, sometimes by listening to and learning from them. There is no warranty that public thoughtfulness about rigid moral issues will lead in any given situation to consensus—or even to correction for the moral and religious views of others. It’s always probable that learning more about a moral or religious dogma will lead us to like it less. But we cannot know until we set out and act on it , or can we?

 

[Swaswati Borpuzari]

When discussing the phenomenon of "why they fold," it often refers to the reasons behind a person, organization, or entity's decision to give up, surrender, or cease operations. This can manifest in various contexts, such as business, personal challenges, or even in competitive sports. In a business setting, companies might fold due to a combination of internal and external factors, including financial insolvency, unsustainable business models, intense competition, regulatory pressures, or shifts in market demand. For individuals, the decision to fold might be influenced by overwhelming stress, a lack of resources or support, or a realization that the goal is unattainable given the current circumstances. In sports, athletes or teams might fold under pressure, either due to physical fatigue, mental strain, or the superior performance of their opponents. Each scenario underscores the complexity of the decision to fold, which often involves a careful assessment of the costs and benefits of continuing versus capitulating. Understanding these reasons can provide valuable insights into the resilience and adaptability required to overcome challenges in different aspects of life.

 

[Dhruv Bindhani]

How far can we reel in religion to political discourse? -- Is the question of the hour. The ensuing squabble would be that religion has from the days yore, been used to mobilize voters when the representatives on the right who use it are actually unsympathetic to the underlying problems. While we are at it : is it justifiable that liberal outfits adorn intolerance to a level far less liberal than their façade ?

For the matter at hand: in a multi-ethnic, multi-faceted society such as ours, bringing morality and religion into politics does carry definite risks. But these risks are inevitable in democratic politics. Liberalists in recent decades have made the blunder of yielding to religious conservatives, a cartel on some of the most intoxicating sources of political argument.

While it’s true that some people use religion acrimoniously, it’s also the truth that, on many political problems, it’s not possible to be nonaligned on the underlying moral question. I think liberals should slot in rather than avoid the moral and religious fervours that citizens bring to public life—whether the issue is abortion, same-sex marriage, poverty, health care, or the environment.

A politics of moral commitment is not only a more rousing superlative than a politics of evasion ,It is also a more promising basis for a just social order.

A stout unrestricted rendezvous with our moral incongruities could offer a stronger, basis for reciprocated respect. Rather than avoiding the moral and religious fervours that our associate citizens bring to community life, we should attend to them more unswervingly—sometimes by challenging and contesting them, sometimes by listening to and learning from them. There is no warranty that public thoughtfulness about rigid moral issues will lead in any given situation to consensus—or even to correction for the moral and religious views of others. It’s always probable that learning more about a moral or religious dogma will lead us to like it less. But we cannot know until we set out and act on it , or can we?

This piece is a true masterclass in how to present information with both intellect and elegance. The writer's unique writing style is truly captivating; it's vibrant, insightful, and possesses a distinctive voice that makes the reading experience immensely enjoyable. This isn't just writing; it's a conversation. The article's structure is meticulously planned and executed, guiding you through its various facets with a natural and intuitive rhythm. This seamless flow allows for deep engagement with the material. Furthermore, the unparalleled clarity of the ideas conveyed is a major strength. Complex notions are distilled into their essence, presented with such sharp focus that you come away with a profound and unambiguous understanding.

 

[Simran Rai]

How far can we reel in religion to political discourse? -- Is the question of the hour. The ensuing squabble would be that religion has from the days yore, been used to mobilize voters when the representatives on the right who use it are actually unsympathetic to the underlying problems. While we are at it : is it justifiable that liberal outfits adorn intolerance to a level far less liberal than their façade ?

For the matter at hand: in a multi-ethnic, multi-faceted society such as ours, bringing morality and religion into politics does carry definite risks. But these risks are inevitable in democratic politics. Liberalists in recent decades have made the blunder of yielding to religious conservatives, a cartel on some of the most intoxicating sources of political argument.

While it’s true that some people use religion acrimoniously, it’s also the truth that, on many political problems, it’s not possible to be nonaligned on the underlying moral question. I think liberals should slot in rather than avoid the moral and religious fervours that citizens bring to public life—whether the issue is abortion, same-sex marriage, poverty, health care, or the environment.

A politics of moral commitment is not only a more rousing superlative than a politics of evasion ,It is also a more promising basis for a just social order.

A stout unrestricted rendezvous with our moral incongruities could offer a stronger, basis for reciprocated respect. Rather than avoiding the moral and religious fervours that our associate citizens bring to community life, we should attend to them more unswervingly—sometimes by challenging and contesting them, sometimes by listening to and learning from them. There is no warranty that public thoughtfulness about rigid moral issues will lead in any given situation to consensus—or even to correction for the moral and religious views of others. It’s always probable that learning more about a moral or religious dogma will lead us to like it less. But we cannot know until we set out and act on it , or can we?

This piece raises a profound and timely question about the role of religion in political discourse, particularly in a diverse society like ours where faith, morality, and public life are often deeply intertwined. While the writer acknowledges the historical use of religion as a political tool—sometimes opportunistic or even divisive—they also argue that avoiding religious or moral reasoning in politics can be equally problematic. The critique of both right-wing groups who may use religion without addressing real issues, and liberal groups who sometimes reject moral engagement in the name of secularism, highlights a critical paradox. In a democracy, citizens are driven not only by policy but also by values and ethical convictions that often stem from religious or moral beliefs. Ignoring this dimension can leave the political conversation shallow and disconnected from people’s lived realities. The call for liberals to engage sincerely with religious and moral questions rather than avoiding them is a thought-provoking one. It suggests that shared morality—rather than simply shared interests—can serve as a stronger foundation for mutual respect and social cohesion. Importantly, the writer does not advocate for blind acceptance of religious views in politics but encourages active listening, respectful disagreement, and thoughtful dialogue. By engaging with these beliefs, even when they differ from our own, we make space for more authentic and inclusive public reasoning. Ultimately, the piece champions a kind of politics that does not shy away from hard questions or moral tension, but embraces them as part of a healthy democratic process. It reminds us that consensus may not always be possible, and that understanding others might sometimes lead to deeper disagreement, but this journey of engagement is essential if we hope to build a society rooted in both justice and genuine pluralism.​