Their rights are protected, and yes to the other two questions. But as others have mentioned, their numbers have been decreasing steadily, mostly due to their insular nature. Here’s one site I found that has some pictures of the temples.
Link
Also, I saw this documentary once and it covered the Zoroastrians and showed footage from inside one of the temples of fire.
Vedic Hinduism predates Zoroaster by more than a thousand years.If there were any influences it went from Hinduism to Zoroaster. Sacred fire may have come from Vedic traditions where fire was deified as Agni, the messenger of the gods who carried sacrifices.
Zoroaster, of course, did not deify the fire.
Incidentally, with regards to the OP, I’m not sure if it’s been mentioned yet but Zoroastrianism does not accept converts. One must be born into the religion to be a member.
The Baha’i’s claiming a prophet after Mohammed doesn’t sit well with Muslims.
From http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext99/spzar10.txt:
Classic Gahan Wilson cartoon: A professor-type is sitting at a bar; behind him hovers a giant android robot. Professor to bartender: “He’s programmed to take me home the moment I start quoting Nietzsche!”
Is there any concern among Zoroastrians as to how their religion will survive? Might not this fear convince some to open up to allowing conversions?
Even though Jews are far more than Zoroastrians, I’ve heard a number of Jews voice extreme worry of the survival of the Jewish religion/people. If Jews worry, why don’t Zoroastrians?
WRS
[Tom Leherer mode]
Oh, let us worship Zarathustra
just the way we used ta
I’m a Zarathustra booster
It’s good enough for me
[/Tom Leherer mode]
If “The Man in White” himself, evil alternate universe Johny Cash, I mean, Zoro himself comes back (or a reasonable facsimile), he can convert all he likes:
http://www.sivanandadlshq.org/saints/zoroaster.htm
The Kavis and the Karpans, the learned priests of the courts, poisoned the ears of Vishtasp, the Sovereign of Iran. They intrigued against the Prophet and accused him before the king of being a sorcerer. They persuaded the king to put him in prison to die of starvation. Zoroaster remained in the prison for sometime and was saved by the Lord.
The favourite black horse of the king fell ill. Its four legs were drawn up into its belly. Zoroaster sent word to the king that he would cure the horse. He imposed four conditions, which the king readily accepted. Vishtasp had to accept the new faith. He had to consent that his son Isfendiar would defend the new faith. Zoroaster was to be allowed to convert Queen Hutaosa. The king had to reveal the names of all those who had plotted against Zoroaster and punish them. When each leg of the horse came out, each of the four conditions was granted by the king.
=========================================================
http://www.rediff.com/news/2004/nov/11spec.htm
Mistree wonders how people who become Zoroastrians can be called Parsis, since one can only be born into an ethnic community, not join it.
“Such neo-converts can be called Zoroastrians but surely they are not Parsis. What the liberals don’t understand is that even if we take in children with Parsi mothers and non-Parsi fathers, it does not solve their concern about declining Parsi numbers. We may increase the religion, but not the community,” he says.
He has a point. For the Parsis of India, it is a tough call: should they keep alive their religion even as the Parsi ethnicity gradually disappears? Or keep things as they are and hope that the new generation of Parsi couples will have more children.
Perhaps Census 2011 might help the community decide the path it must take.
Additional reportage: A Ganesh Nadar in Mumbai
=========================================================
http://www.w-z-o.org/Z_Zoroastrianism_shahin.htm
Gender equality
EQUALITY of gender remains a feature, which has singled out Zoroastrians from their Iranian compatriots throughout history.
A woman’s willingness to speak her views in the presence of her partner and for those views to be accepted as valid was characteristic and still is. In every sense the Zoroastrian woman has maintained her equality of position in society and, where necessary, has been head of the household in the absence of her husband or, in the case of widowhood, made decisions affecting land sales inheritances, harvesting times, educational choices, marriage partners for off-spring etc.
Since the early 20th century when girls’ schools were opened for Zoroastrians, women have shown their competence in every sphere by achieving high qualifications and careers in all domains where men have succeeded.
There is, however, one issue which outsiders may raise in trying to make a case for the unequal treatment of women in Zoroastrianism and this concerns concepts of purity and pollution, which resulted from the entrenched dualism which had evolved by the last phase of Zoroastrianism under the Sassanians between the third and seventh centuries CE. At this time the religion was already almost 2,000 years old, the age of Christianity today.
It was almost inevitable that by that time the original ideas should have undergone some permutations. In fact, some aspects of the original philosophy had been so elaborated as to arrange dualistic categories for the classification of all material things. As a result of this, dirt, darkness, noxious creatures (e.g. scorpions, snakes etc), death, blood and so on were arranged in the negative or impure category and, because women undergo monthly cycles, they were classified as impure during this time.
This meant that members of the community were careful not to come into contact with them during this period and women withdrew on monthly “sabbaticals” with their friends and family members to a special part of the household where they used special utensils and had no contact with those in the “pure” category until they had finished their cycle and undergone ritual purification.
It must be stressed that they were not treated in an inferior way nor despised, but merely treated as different during this time of the month. This practice has all but died out, although residual aspects may be detected in the unwillingness of some women to go to the temple at this time of the month out of respect for the sanctity and purity of the fire.
They worry. In fact, in that same documentary, one of the religious leaders mentioned something about there only being something around 38,000 followers left in Iran.
But as Tamerlane pointed out, the more traditionalist elements are refusing to accept converts. There are some Zoroastrian organizations that do allow converts, mostly in the west. But the original communities found today in Iran and India do not recognize those converts. The Bombay Parsee Punchayet for example oppose joining the International Zoroastrian Organization because they allow organizations which have converts.
Someone unplug that bastard!
Nietzsche, I loved your book. Could you autograph my copy?
Thanks.
As per my first quote, Zoro converted people. Obviously. Do you or anyone else know, did he said further converts can’t do just that, convert, or was he just silent on the subject? I am not going to go through the whole holy book now. Anyone else want to take a crack at it?
Zoroaster seems to have been the only recognized “converter.” If I understand correctly, Zoroastrians only recognize conversions performed under a prophet.
But Zoroaster himself is a bit unclear on the subject. For example, the groups in the west which do allow converts cite verses such as " …the growth of serenity and righteousness shall convert many a seeker…" (Song 12. 6) as being suggestive of allowing and seeking converts. Zoroastrians reject limiting inclusion based on race or class. Perhaps centuries of being invaded by various armies required the adherents to adopt a more insular system to maintain integrity and ensure the religion’s survival.
Thanks to Alexander’s great adventure, much of Zoroaster’s original texts were destroyed. Guess we’ll never know for sure if there ever was a definitive answer.
Thanks. Which one? 
This dislike of conversion - does it mean that while Zoroastrians would not accept a convert, they would accept the children of a convert?
I used to have a car named Ahura Mazda, though sometimes it acted more like Ahriman.
Never considered converting, which is just as well, since Zoroastrians tend not to accept converts. Still, I like a lot about the religion. They still have that pesky hell concept, but it isn’t eternal. Seems a lot more fair to me than the Christian view that I was raised with.
I liked your early work on the Superman comic books, and I ** loved** when you cut a solo album
The rest of the band was just draging you down.
P.S. I still don’t understand the conversion thing. After all, if a prophet can “find” the book of Ester, or which ever lost book of the torah was found, then why can’t a preacher pull out a scroll saying that it is ok to convert those who worship their cars?
So what does it offer that Christianity and Islam don’t? Remember, it’s not enough for it to be just as good. For people to seriously consider abandoning the religion they were raised in for another, they have to see something perceptibly better in it.
There’s also a tradition among the Indian Parsis that when they were first allowed to settle in India, it was on the condition that they not accept converts. So, they’ve been keeping to that condition.
BrainGlutton, allow me to twist around your words a bit. So what does Christianity and Islam offer that worship of Ahura Mazda doesn’t?
I suppose that if they did want to get converts than they “find” a scroll alowwing them to gain converts, then point out the theological implications of their having had the concept beloved of those religions first.
Bear in mind this is just theoretical, oh and they can gain plenty of convertsin other places besides Iran, such as Persia.
This seems to be where some of the contention between those that recognize converts and those that don’t is. My guess is that the problem stems from the fact that any religion that doesn’t explicitly define how to “spread the word” will wind up with some elements who’ll reject converts. So unless, as you suggested, they somehow “find” scrolls that are clearer on the subject, the argument will continue.
Did you mean other than Iran, such as India?
They were just in it for the chicks.
Good point. This is one of the reasons that I’ve heard as to why Zoroastrianism lost out to Islam. The latter giving men much more prominence than women, hence enticing converts (as well as being much clearer on the subject of conversion).
Which is why I personally think that this whole “no converts” thing is borne more out of tradition than any rule in Zoroastrianism. “Protecting the community” was a common belief (and clearly still is), but I don’t recall any edict on the matter.
Let’s take a look. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroastrianism:
Therefore, Christianity and Islam offer a greater God – a chance to believe in a universe where good reigns supreme, now, and evil is always doomed to frustration in the end.
OTOH, Zoroastrianism provides a more comprehensible solution to “the problem of evil” – bad things happening to good people, like Job. Why would a good and all-powerful God allow that? (I know, I know, free will, but bear with me.) Why would he have created Satan and Hell? From the same article:
As we see, Zoroastrianism also offers something you don’t get in Christianity or Islam – the hope of universal salvation. It’s also more of a, well, modern religion in its tenets, despite its ancient origins:
Easy to see why the Hindus have tolerated them – and why the Muslims have been rather less acommodating. Muslims hate oppression and value work and charity – but gender equality is anathema to them, praying to fire is idolatry, and the idea of the natural world having some inherent value other than its usefulness to humans is completely alien to the Islamic world-view. (So I’ve been told. Maybe Tamerlane can correct me on that last point.)
Are you sure it is the preferred term? In the Zoroastrian websites I have been to, almost all proudly call themselves “Zoroastrian.” After all, an essential prayer states: “mazdayasnô ahmî mazdayasnô zarathushtrish fravarânê astûtaschâ fravaretaschâ” (emphasis added), which may be translated as: “I profess myself a Mazda-worshiper, a Zoroastrian, having vowed it and professed it” (emphasis added). From the Padyab Kusti prayers in the Khorda Avesta at Avesta.org. I just want to be sure I am not using incorrect terminology.
Why would a Parsi tradition hinder non-Parsi Zoroastrians? I don’t think Irani Zoroastrians call themselves “Parsis” - this term, I believe, is used exclusively for Zoroastrians from Gujarat who came from Fars to escape the Arabs.
WRS - ashem vohû vahishtem astî ushtâ astî ushtâ ahmâi hyat ashâi vahishtâi ashem.
I think a lot of the time in our western polyglot culture we don’t understand the genetic purity that a religion like Zoroastrianism maintains. When one is part of a community, there is a commonality that is inherent that can even be unspoken that lets one know that another is capable of being trusted. Within such a level of societal purity, they will easily be able to spot another who is from that same thread. Obviously at one point they accepted converts, otherwise it would have died out with Zoroaster, so perhaps communities become grandfathered in over time.
As for the comparison with Jews. I’ve found that jews in general are extraordinarily insecure about their survival in general, and that this is an integral part of the social makeup of what makes up Judaism. Perhaps Zoroastrianism doesn’t have the same fear of survival naturally ingrained. Or perhaps the fear of survival is the motivation for their strict orthodox adherence to a sense of purity, and they maintain a small but strong core of belief rather than a diluted missionary style like Christianity or Islam prefer.
The religion that any person has is not the same religion as the religion of the person next to them, let alone the same religion as it was worshipped 1000 years ago on another continent. We do not live in a vacuum, neither do the Zoroastrians. Their faith is changed by the people that any of them come into contact with, every new thing they learn, every new concept they are exposed to changes the way they think. Just as every person that leaves the presence of the Zoroastrian takes Zoroastrianism home with them. It’s like a metaphysical cross-pollenization.
I can understand why I will never be a Zoroastrian. I am not a part of that community, no matter how much my understanding mimics their’s, it is not the same understanding. My particular faith is more or less uniquely American, it is a mixture of all the world’s faiths that I have been exposed to. When people tell me ideas that are labelled as “Zoroastrian” I find resonance that I agree with in their words, but that doesn’t make me a “Zoroastrian.” Even though I was raised in a Christian environment, I have a hard time considering myself Christian due to all of those other influences, even though I know intellectually that Christianity is itself a polyglot faith of many different ideas from all over the world. Every religion has helped to define every other religion.
Religion is more about the community that surrounds it than it is about the particular beliefs, as the spiritual understanding can be attained by many different paths. So what makes someone Zoroastrian is the common genetic and cultural threads they share, and an outside convert does not come from that common thread.
I can call myself a Christian but I can’t convert into an “Armenian”.
Erek