I saw the following sentence in an essay by Nancy Gibbs in Time magazine.

Silly as it is, this matters. Because words shape our world.

Is it now grammatically acceptable to start and end an independent clause with "because"?
If so, what about other subordinate conjunctions such as "although, while, as soon as," etc.

I know this works when you give an answer to a question in a conversation, but it seems acceptable in an informal writing, especially when you want to emphasize that clause.

Does my observation make any sense?

Apple

This message has been edited. Last edited by: M.T.,

I think nowadays it is quite possible to have only a clause starting with "because," "and," "but," and many other conjunctions. I have seen it in many texts, but it is still safer to use complete sentences, I think.
By the way, authors might prefer to use a clause to show that it is separate from the previous sentence, or they might want to emphasize it by showing a sharp contrast.

Let's wait to see others' opinions as well.

Making a new sentence starting with "because" -- even if it's not quite grammatical -- is rhetorically acceptable because it's stronger than sticking the clause at the end of another sentence.

Using dependent clauses independently happens a lot in conversation, in speeches, and certainly in advertising. In many cases, it works very well. Maybe because this kind of speech makes the dependent clause seem stronger, as Okaasan suggests.

The only caution I would take is the one Mehrdad alluded to: it's safer to use dependent clauses as dependent clauses in serious writing.