I was leafing through my copy of Newsweek tonight, and happened upon a section entitled “Belief Watch.” Now I may be an atheist, but I’m not so narrow minded to think religious topics shouldn’t be covered in print. Suffice it to say that I kind of expected the articles to show a little less religious (and particularly Christian) bias! There were two articles in this section.

The first article mentioned the recent death of Mormon leader Gordon B. Hinckley at the ripe old age of 97. It was mostly a news article, and fairly written, if a bit gushing rather than factual. It’s most biased line was the opening sentence which stated matter-of-factly that Hinckey “was revered by LDS members as a prophet of God.” While perhaps not technically incorrect, I can’t help feeling that there is a weaselly tone, particularly in the use of the capital-G “God.” Okay, so technically the Christian god is named by the title (or is it a name) of God, but I can’t help thinking that a better wording would be to say that he “was revered by LDS members as a prophet of their religion.” Or perhaps simply “as a prophet.” Eh…I’m nit-picking there, I’ll admit it.

The other article, entitled 4 Sale: Bones of the Saints, was about the sale of religious relics, such as Saints’ bones and shrouds and such, on eBay. I certainly won’t dispute the interest that an article like this might have for readers. I myself was interested. But again, upon reading this article, I found a sneaking, weasely wording in use by the author. One description of what a relic is states that “they remind believers of God’s promise that in his kingdom, everything broken will become whole again.” Huh? Is this a news article or are we in the pulpit? Then the author goes on “to put it very crassly, these are tiny antique body parts, usually in pretty little frames.” How is this a “crass” statement? The author implies that to state simply, and logically what these items are, without engaging in reverent speech is vulgar and unrefined! It’s a preachy sort of tone I would expect to find in the Christian Science Monitor, but not Newsweek! Then the writer moves on to talk about one Christian zealot’s boycott of eBay, for the “abomination” of selling such holy items, and talks about his work to “protect the world’s holy relics from profiteering entrepreneurs.” I should clarify, these are the author’s words. She is not quoting the religious zealot. This wording by the author in the body of her article seems to suggest that such relics are genuine, and worthy of protection. Finally the writer wonders if it is “really possible to purchase a piece of God’s grace and mystery with a credit card? Or are such gifts given by God alone.” Well, at least she finally questions the reality of magic bones, even if she doesn’t do the same for her god.

This is a major news periodical! I mean, I half expected to see the article closed with “amen!” I can’t help feeling that an article like this is the worst kind of proselytizing…the subtle kind. There was no mention of relics from other religions, no speaking to religious experts about the history of relics (most were created in the middle ages for the express purpose of profiteering by both the entrepreneur and the church). There was no mention that not a single relic has ever been proven to truly be a “piece of the true cross” or a “shard from the crown of thorns.” Nothing stating that some of the most famous relics, like the shroud of Turin, have been proven to be fakes. Newsweek simply decided that if they label a section of their magazine “belief watch,” they can write whatever they want without research or investigation. Bravo, to Newsweek for their journalistic integrity!