¶ … R.I.P. RELIGIOUS RIGHT and other Super Tuesday Take-Aways . . . Whereas the "religious right" had seemed to be a dominant force in American politics, particularly powerful in the Republican Party, the influence of this loud but still minority group seems to have waned. This article goes so far as to suggest that candidate Donald Trump's raging popularity in the Bible Belt signals a nail in the coffin for the infiltration of politics by the religious right. Similarly, the author insinuates a possible shift in American social norms as traditional Bible Belt causes now seem like "lost causes." The "organizational weight has withered," notes Burke, referring to the lack of strong leadership among the religious right. Ironically, voters who claim to value religion strongly have come out in support of Trump. Also ironic is the fact that stalwart Democrat Hilary Clinton has gained ground among African-Americans particularly because of her personal religiosity. The difference between Clinton supporters and Sanders supporters reveals what Burke calls a "god gap" in the Democratic Party. Supporters of Senator Sanders tend to be strongly secular. These changes in the American political landscape signal deeper changes embedded in the society.

Burke's article is brief and does not go into any depth in terms of analyzing the sociological causes for these changes in voter behavior. However, it is possible to infer much about the shifts in core values and social norms in America. It is also possible that these voter trends do not reflect change so much as revealing the more genuine political and social divides in the United States. For instance, Trump might be popular among evangelicals in the South because Trump stands for brazen anti-government rhetoric and blatantly racist worldviews. Anti-government rhetoric and racism might have always been more important to the subset of voters that prefers Trump, contrary to what might have been believed about evangelicals voting solely for their religious causes such as anti-choice or anti-gay policies. The "god gap" among Democrats is a little easier to understand, given the fact that African-Americans have traditionally tended to vote for Democrats and many high profile Democrats (and Southerners) like Jimmy Carter have also been openly religious people. Sanders appeals to the broad swath of Americans who sympathize with socialist values and policies, and who also happen to value science, reason, and the strict separation of church and state.

Religion has long been a divisive issue in American politics. The original settlers of the United States were devoutly religious, often overtly superstitious and dangerously so. A First and Second Great Awakening long preceded the Reagan-era political collusion between church and state. Christians in America do sometimes struggle with not being able to impose their sense of moral superiority onto people whose values differ from their own, and often do try to infuse religious beliefs with legislation and public policy as with the recent backlash against LGBTQ rights in the south. Yet the lack of support for Ted Cruz among evangelicals has made this election cycle interesting. As Burke shows, evangelicals are not wooed by any born-again candidate. Evangelicals have a political platform that extends far beyond single issues like abortion or gay rights. The platform of the evangelicals converges with those of the less religious Trump supporters who simply harbor fear, anger, hatred, and mistrust towards non-whites, towards the federal government, and towards a free, open, tolerant, and civil society. Religion is already taking a back seat to a more important value in America: the value of social justice. Sanders has been doing well precisely because he represents a large cadre of Americans who wish to take back political power from the oligarchy and usher in a new era in which socialism is no longer a dirty word.

PART B: "ARMY CAVES, Allows Sikh to keep his beard and turban."

The title of this article, "Army caves ... " immediately divulges the author's (and editor's) bias. To "cave" means to "give in," or even "give up" a fight. The choice of words indicates the author would have liked to have seen the army rule against Captain Singh. Furthermore, the author includes no reasons why to make accommodations for someone like Singh, who is not only a captain in active duty but who also had been willing to cut his hair and beard while at West Point, indicating a deep devotion to fighting for his country. Instead, Bennett makes a blatantly Islamophobic...

The author also does not seek input from Army spokespeople, instead resorting to citing a "senior counsel at religious liberty firm the Becket Fund." The article is clearly biased but at least does inspire some debate as to whether Singh does indeed deserve special accommodations and what those accommodations would entail for general Army policy.
In this case, the army had asked that Captain Simratpal Singh shave his traditional beard and remove his turban if he cared to remain in the armed services. After all the many years of training Captain Singh had received, it is no small wonder that it took him receiving a senior title before the national media picked up on the story. Interestingly, Singh is only the fourth person in history and the only person in active combat duty to ever successfully win an exemption to the existing policy against beards and long hair. The exemption was granted under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, but only grants a one-month reprieve for the Captain, who will have to decide between his religious customs or his military career.

A letter to Mr. Bennett from a sociological perspective would go as follows:

Dear Mr. Bennett,

Captain Singh has proved to be an exemplary military officer throughout his ten years of service. Since Singh regretted his initial decision to cut his hair and beard for the purposes of conforming to the military's strict dress and appearance code, he subsequently fought hard for the right to be both proud Sikh and proud military officer. Given the provisions of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, it is understandable why the Army saw fit to grant an exemption in this case and most likely will face a lawsuit unless the exemption is extended to cover the duration of Singh's service. There is no rational explanation for why a Sikh Captain who wishes to devote his life to serve should not also be permitted to remain pious and reverential in his faith.

The Army needs more men like Singh. Providing the means by which strong officers can bolster our national security is a top recruitment and retention priority. Active duty officers like Singh should be afforded every opportunity to petition their senior officers for exceptions to appearance codes based on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act or any other provision. Rather than change the policy for all officers, a case-by-case analysis would allow senior officers to make decisions based on the merits of each case, as it has been done with Singh.

In the military, it is important that discipline and appearance standards are maintained and are, moreover, consistent. However, military procedures and policies must also be flexible and cognizant of diversity, shifting values, and the multiple variables that support an officer's ability to remain steadfast. Commitment to his culture and community should be viewed as a strength and proof of good character, not as a threat.

PART C: "ISIS RECRUITING TEENAGERS: Why the Government Is Sounding the Alarm . . ."

For whatever reason, ISIS has been appealing to Western youth, according to Kaplan, based on the small but still astonishing number of teenagers who have left their lives in places like London to fight with the jihadist group. Whether because the teenagers are seduced by a "romantic, heroic and alluring" narrative, or whether they have been brainwashed as if into a cult, the phenomenon of teen recruits warrants attention. Teachers are smart to be worried.

Preventing teenagers from joining ISIS should be the job of counterterrorism experts in the FBI and other intelligence ministries within the Department of Homeland Security. In fact, federal and international counterterrorism organizations should be working to develop outreach and education services that can help parents, teachers, and any community members to identify warning signs and risk factors. Outreach and education could also entail delivering workshops and lectures throughout the country to raise awareness about the issue. Items up for discussion should include parents being willing to provide closer supervision of teens' social media feeds to make sure they are not participating in jihadist groups. Other more subtle warning signs should also be discussed, such as any indication that a young person shows sympathy with jihadist causes. Those causes could be related to the "romantic" vision of a "pure" Islamic state based on the myth of an ideal caliphate, or the causes could be more related to championing an underdog fighting for recognition amid discrimination.

It is doubtful there is a silver bullet to inoculate teens against recruiting efforts. However, closer…