Religion, Military Accommodation, and ISIS Recruitment in U.S. Politics

The Decline of the Religious Right After Super Tuesday

Whereas the "religious right" had seemed to be a dominant force in American politics — particularly powerful within the Republican Party — the influence of this loud but still minority group appears to have waned. One analysis goes so far as to suggest that Donald Trump's surging 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 appear to be "lost causes." The "organizational weight has withered," Burke notes, 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 Hillary Clinton gained ground among African Americans particularly because of her personal religiosity.

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 genuine change so much as they reveal the more authentic political and social divides in the United States. For instance, Trump might be popular among evangelicals in the South because he stands for brazen anti-government rhetoric and blatantly racist worldviews. Anti-government rhetoric and racism might have always been more important to that subset of voters than what had previously been assumed about evangelicals voting solely for religious causes such as anti-choice or anti-gay policies.

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. The "god gap" among Democrats is somewhat easier to understand given that African Americans have traditionally voted Democratic, and many high-profile Democrats — including Southerners like Jimmy Carter — have also been openly religious. Sanders appealed to a broad swath of Americans who sympathize with socialist values and policies and who also tend to value science, reason, and the strict separation of church and state.

The 'God Gap' and Shifting Democratic Voter Coalitions

Religion has long been a divisive issue in American politics. The original settlers of the United States were devoutly religious, often overtly and dangerously superstitious. A First and Second Great Awakening long preceded the Reagan-era political collusion between church and state. Christians in America sometimes struggle with the impulse to impose their moral standards on people whose values differ from their own, and often attempt to infuse religious beliefs into legislation and public policy — as seen in recent backlashes against LGBTQ rights in the South. Yet the lack of support for Ted Cruz among evangelicals made that election cycle particularly interesting. As Burke shows, evangelicals were not automatically won over by any born-again candidate. Their political platform extends far beyond single issues like abortion or gay rights. That platform converges with the concerns of less religious Trump supporters who simply harbor fear, anger, and mistrust toward non-whites, the federal government, and an open, tolerant civil society. Religion was already taking a back seat to a more important value in America: social justice. Sanders performed well precisely because he represented a large segment of Americans who wished to reclaim political power from the oligarchy and usher in an era in which socialism is no longer a dirty word.

The title of the article "Army Caves, Allows Sikh to Keep His Beard and Turban" immediately reveals the author's — and editor's — bias. To "cave" means to "give in" or even "give up" a fight. The word choice indicates the author would have preferred to see the Army rule against Captain Singh. Furthermore, the author offers no reasons why accommodations should be made for someone like Singh, who is not only a captain in active duty but who had also previously been willing to cut his hair and beard while at West Point — demonstrating deep devotion to serving his country. Instead, the author makes a blatantly Islamophobic remark: "Success in keeping the beard and turban will likely prompt Muslims to start seeking similar accommodations." This constitutes a slippery slope logical fallacy. The author also fails to seek input from Army spokespeople, relying instead on a citation from a "senior counsel at religious liberty firm the Becket Fund." The article is clearly biased, though it does at least prompt debate about whether Singh deserves special accommodations and what such accommodations would mean for general Army policy.

In this case, the Army had asked Captain Simratpal Singh to shave his traditional beard and remove his turban if he wished to remain in the armed services. After the many years of training Singh had received, it is notable that national media attention did not come until he had reached a senior rank. Singh is only the fourth person in history, and the only person in active combat duty, ever to successfully win an exemption to the existing policy against beards and long hair. The exemption was granted under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act but covers only a one-month reprieve, leaving the Captain to decide between his religious customs and his military career.

Captain Singh and Religious Accommodation in the Military

A letter to the article's author from a sociological perspective would read as follows:

Dear Mr. Bennett,

ISIS Recruitment of Western Teenagers

The Army needs more men like Singh. Providing the conditions under which strong officers can bolster national security is a top recruitment and retention priority. Active duty officers like Singh should be afforded every opportunity to petition their superiors for exceptions to appearance codes based on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act or any other applicable provision. Rather than changing the policy for all officers, a case-by-case analysis would allow senior officers to make decisions based on the merits of each individual case, as was 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 one's culture and community should be viewed as a strength and proof of good character, not as a threat.

For reasons that continue to be studied, ISIS appealed to Western youth, as evidenced by the small but astonishing number of teenagers who left their lives in places like London to fight with the jihadist group. Whether because these teenagers were seduced by a "romantic, heroic, and alluring" narrative or were effectively brainwashed as if into a cult, the phenomenon of teen recruits warrants serious attention. Teachers were right to be concerned.