I don't know if I can answer people's questions but I was born Parsi (I.e. Zoroastrians from India). AMA
My eyebrows rose when I heard Julia Roberts was a Hindu, and perhaps these people are the same. In love with exoticism, but not authentic.
What I will say is, I do think this question/your perspective is archaic (sorry for the harsh words, I have biases too :P). And I'll try to explain in the most HN way possible (i.e. the reasoning which convinces me the most, about most things).
Personally, I don't know these people, it is unlikely you do either. By any reasonable estimate no person knows any other person. All we can know are the inputs and the outputs provided to the black box which is "a person". As such, I subscribe to the idea that, the only real test which can be applied is one suggested by Turing[1].
If these people, including Julia Roberts, act the part they claim to be, so well that in a "blind" assessment they act so flawlessly that the observer cannot tell otherwise, then until proven otherwise, they must be Zorastrian or Hindu.
P.S. I know I need to work on being more succinct :)
[0] Respectfully, - Are there any real Scotsmen? - If there is such a thing, what makes a real Zorastrian? - Which person/people alive have the right to judge?
[1] If you are aware of a better assessment technique, sincerely, I would be overjoyed to hear it!
That's not what a few google results tell me. It seems, in India the answer is definitely No, while in Iran the answer is Maybe. The Indian No is presumably to stop the religion dissipating, while the Iranian Maybe is a kind of "well, they're ancestors were probably Z anyway." In the West, people would follow the notion that there is a spiritual supermarket, and you just choose which flavour suits you, so it's a Yes there.
I don't prescribe to your Turing idea. People are not black box machines pretending to be humans. Rachel Dolezal was not black on one day and white on another.
You cannot convert into being Parsi. The same way you might be able to convert to Judaism, but you can only be born a Jew.
As such there maybe a misconception online about Indian Zorastrians' opinion on converting to become Zorastrian. Additionally, keep in mind regardless of the debate you'll always see the more passionate opinion publicized rather than the more apathetic opinion (i.e. "I don't care either way if they want to convert. Good for them").
I've no doubt that there are some deracinated Parsis in the West that claim that "nobody minds" in order to make Z fit in with other religions. But that strikes me as almost a form of group suicide. If you feel that way about other groups it would end with their erasure. Why not just concrete over North Sentinel Island and turn it into a startup hub?
Historically, inviting others to convert, from the wrong perspective, can look like an attempt to steal devouts. As refugees, in both India and Iran, they don't want to "push their luck".
However, the political climate has softened and continues to soften, and Zorastrians as I've said in other posts are very accepting of everything. You do not need to believe me, I only have empirical evidence, no facts or links for you. However, frankly, from a culture perspective, we have to be accepting. We owe our survival to the acceptance others gave us.
Even if trans-race were a reasonable thing (and the reasons that it's unreasonable are far too complicated to get into, and far too off-topic), Dolezal's actions and Roberts' actions would still be very different. Even if you lived in a world where trans-race were somehow legitimate, I'd imagine lots of people would still be uncomfortable about Dolezal's approach to it. But religious conversion, in general, has long been accepted, and Roberts' conversion is extremely normal as conversions go.
It is true that occasionally religious identities that have ethnic identities get complicated; as a random example, the Eastern Orthodox churches in the US have some trouble with this, since the communities overlap heavily with ethnic (Greek, Russian, etc.) identity, and there are occasionally some awkward spots when converts to Orthodoxy start gaining leadership roles in the church (which is reasonable!) and then trying to mold it into the vision of the church that they were looking for before their conversion. But I wouldn't doubt the seriousness of these converts' conversions, even so, and regardless, Julia Roberts is doing nothing of the sort.
I'm not sure this sounds like a reasonable standard to join any religion. "If you're a convert, shut up". Sounds like second class status. This stuff is too complicated for me.
I'm just saying that it happens to be true for Roberts, and that this differentiates her case from Dolezal's.
The situation in Iran is complicated. Zoroastrianism is a protected group there, but it's extremely dangerous to be seen as welcoming converts in the Islamic republic. Simultaneously, to convert away is basically to accede a small amount of political power. I've heard (especially in Religion in Iran[2]) that there may be a Zoroastrian movement taking shape; as converts, those folks would certainly be welcoming of converts, but it's likely to make the established group anxious because if it gains too much attention it will lead to persecution of all Zoroastrians in Iran. So you have two overlapping marginal groups each trying to exaggerate the figures in opposite directions—which is sort of thematic for the kind of contradictions you see in Iran generally.
[1]: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/byblackscom/rachel-dolezal-is-n...
[2]: https://www.amazon.com/Religions-Iran-Prehistory-Richard-Fol...
On the other hand, 'cultural' Jews are more likely to marry non-Jews, and absorb them into Judaism that way. And I suppose this leads to cultural Jews leaving Judaism too. I think I read somewhere that the descendants of all the founders of Reform Judaism ended up outside Judaism.
That doesn't follow; converts are very often quite passionate about the beliefs of the group they convert to, and it's distinction form others, but that doesn't mean that they necessarily prefer the version that is seen as most pure by outsiders.
http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2015/10/10/445343896/i...
You can convert to Judaism, but you can only be born a Jew.
i.e. The difference between a religion and an association with a culture.
Whenever I do think about them, one of my primary thoughts are of sympathy and strength. Not for any current standpoint (I'm sure they are mostly fine these days) but historically, (as you're likely aware) they were forced to convert over to Islam or were killed. Most Zorastrians still in and around Iran, were only Zorastrian in secret. I can't imagine how the religion survived a few thousand years in that region despite that hostile environment.
Other than that, we "Parsis" consider "Iranis" Zorastrian, just as much as we are. However, we do not consider them Parsi. Similar-ish to the Protestant/Catholic sub-cultures.
Strange, as Parsi comes from the word Persi, or Persian. Rhythmically, Farsi is the language of the Persians. In Pakistan, we refer to native Farsi speaking people as Parsi, Persi, or Irani.
Like Asian, Parsi is a colloquialism first, a fact second.
I do not know how else to describe it to you.
What about Zoroastrianism makes you wish for a comeback?
1. Convert.
2. Die.
3. (Option which wasn't provided) Run away.
FWIW, if you want more info about why your parent commenter seeks a "comeback" is likely related to how I call Zorastrian ideas "infectious" in another of my posts on this thread. Check it out. Let me know what you think.
When the Muslims invaded, the two most powerful houses refused to fight, and returned to their land in north east Iran. This left a weakened Western Persia alone to fight the invasion, which it could not successfully do.
Of course, the New Testament contains unambiguous and extensive references to Zoroastrianism so clearly it must be far older than the origin given for the Avesta.
so clearly Zoroastrianism is much older than the origin of the Avesta. Is there a generally accepted date of origin for the former?
> If you use successful people per capita as a metric, Parsis are likely on top of the list.
This is primarily due to their entrepreneurial spirit, and treating the British occupation of India as a ladder to success, rather than a insurrection towards their way of life (like most Indians at the time).
Additionally, I've never heard of Paris ever living on the street. They have predominantly been a part of the Indian middle class, even prior to rise of the Indian middle class. I can't speak for all Parsis but today they are mostly upper-middle class.
There is a strong culture of critical thinking, education[0], independence[2] and nepotism[3]. Every Parsi I know has at least graduated from highschool (that is a lie, my grandfather didn't but was successful regardless - he was an exception).
Additionally, most Parsis I know have the equivalent of a Bachelor's degree, and a large number have the equivalent of a Masters. Moreover, a double digit percentage of the Parsi youth today get a Bachelor's/Master's degree from London/Singapore/US/etc and then move home.
Of my ~20-30 male Parsi friends (i.e. my age group) in India, about 9-10 of them are pilots. And believe it or not, Indian pilots are paid in similar orders of magnitude to what AMZN/MSFT pay software engineers in India.
Others are CAs, or in advertising, there are a few who chose to work on oil rigs, some as divers. Of my 20 or so female Parsi friends, a few interior decorators, a few in advertising, a few air-hostesses, a couple CAs. All jobs which pay relatively well in India.
[0] Every single one of us speaks "British" English. We all study exclusively at English medium schools, even tho we are in India[1]. Only in intimate situations (i.e. only with each other, ~25% of the time) we speak Gujarathi/English with Gujarathi slang.
[1] FWIW, most Indians who studied in Indian English medium schools have better English comprehension and written skills than the average American/Canadian. Myself not included, I moved to Canada for highshcool/university forgive my poor grammar/spellings :P
[2] Kids understand they need to fend for themselves, even though they have generous safety nets and support structures, like living at home indefinitely. It is completely normal for women, even after marriage to work, and heavily encouraged before marriage.
[3] Nepotism which exists on this gradient: It is strongest for immediate family, continues strong for family, grows less and less important the more distant a family member you are, however, even a Parsi you've never met gets (if they are qualified) a job before an equally (or slightly more qualified) "other person".
- Many Parsis are named Metha and Patel
- Fleeing from Persia, the first Parsis landed their ships and took refuge in Gujarath.
Fun story (However, I don't know if it is factual):
Fleeing from Persia, their ships actually landed in many places but were not welcome. Finally, they landed in Gujarath, and the king of the land was kind and spoke with them, but rejected their plea for refuge.
The story goes: The king brought out a bowl filled to the brim with milk. A bowl so full it was impossible to fit another drop of milk. He said to the Persian refuges, "this is my kingdom, I'm sorry but as you can see, we will not be able to fit you". And the first Parsis understood, but asked the king, "can we have a spoon of sugar?". The king a bit confused, provided them a spoon of sugar. And they said, "We understand your kingdom is full. We do not want to take any of your room ..." They then very slowly (I imagine painstakingly) sprinkled the sugar into the bowl of milk. Emptying the spoon, and spilling no milk. "... We only want to help make your kingdom sweeter".
As they say, the rest is history.
In all seriousness:
If you're describing Parsis, then likely no. People are not allowed to convert to being Parsi. It isn't a religion, it is a sub-culture. Legally in India, you're only Parsi if you were born to of a Parsi man. Dumb patriarcal rule, which dwindles the Parsi populations.
If you're describing Zorastians, I couldn't say. It seems unlikely to die, its lasted too long, I'm sure it'll stick if only for nostalgia. The liklyhood that in the future children will be born Zorastrian is improbable. However, to be Zorastrian you don't technically have to acknowledge it. To the best of my knowledge, if you act Zorastrian, you are Zorastrian. And the most important mantra among Zorastrians is "Good thoughts, lead to good words, lead to good deeds". Additionally, we are too accepting for our own good. Zorastrians to the best of my knowledge have no official restrictions. You're still Zorastrian if you gamble, if you drink, if you eat whatever. We are accepting of our culture's "death", accepting of other religions[1], accepting (even encouraged) to be critically minded. Sadly, while being critically minded, ends up creating a positively disproportionate number of Parsis becoming "successful"[0], it also means most of us are also critically minded towards religion (i.e. "is there even a god?").
I can expand on this last statement a bit more (in regards to Parsis, not Iranis - I don't know too much about Iranian Zorastrian cultural perspectives). I myself, and what I see of my friends, and their parents, we tend to respect god as if we believe, however, we don't act like we do. I myself, consider myself a poly-ideologist. And love to irritate my religious friends (of all faiths) with "I must believe in god. I pray when shit gets tough, but I don't irritate god by thinking about it the rest of the time." I myself, have come to realize that my Zorastrian/Parsi beliefs are foundational, but they do not provide the framework. I had to personally build my personal framework, originating from that foundation. Which it seems to me most others from my community do. Maybe this was intentional? Maybe this is just how the oldest religion alive had to evolve to scale/continue itself.
Finally, it's unclear what you mean by "your community's future existence", so I'll leave you with this. Long story short, I don't think these "brands" (i.e. Parsi, maybe even Zorastrian) will last. However, the mentality/ideology is infectious. Any child brought up around it adopts it. A lot of adults I've spoken to who are "apathetic" or "atheist" have actually reached similar/identical conclusions.
Hopefully, that answers your question.
[0] If you use successful people per capita as a metric, Parsis are likely on top of the list. As such I view a causal relationship with intelligence.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylonian_captivity; "Persian's conquer Babylon ... a year later the Jews are allowed to leave [or do as they please]"
I'm also from a community that combines a religion with a tribal identity, so I left the question purposely vague since I have no idea which of these carries how much importance to Parsis.
[0] Yes, the guests of King Koroush.