Defining moment

I have always felt that the exclusion of children of mixed marriages into the Zoroastrian fold seems so unnatural and impractical, almost like certain other unnatural and impractical practices of slavery, Nazism, apartheid, and the "Berlin wall,” all evil and all dead. Of course non-conversion of interfaith offspring is not an evil as such, but nevertheless just as the above four have no place in society today, on account of them being unnatural and impractical, so I think should non-conversion.

Supporters of these now defunct systems fought tooth and nail to perpetuate these practices, but they all finally crumbled. I can see the day when members of non-priestly class become dasturs and mobeds, and volunteers become pallbearers simply because of practicalities i.e. a shortage of priestly class applicants, and that of khandhias. As it is, I think I am right in saying that the upkeep of numerous fire-temples is now being performed by non-Zoroastrians. Surely it is against the tenets of our religion for non-Zoroastrians to enter a fire-temple? However practicality dictates, not dogma. Likewise I can see the day that children of interfaith marriages are openly admitted into the faith, and so they should be, as they would be the result of a happy and loving marriage. I am sure that words such as "bastard” and "illegitimate” to describe such offspring would offend even some conservatives.

I had always thought that provided that the father was Zoroastrian, the children could become Zoroastrian. This I suspect was because the family name would be retained. Now because of the polarization of opinion (i.e. conservative vs liberal), protagonists on both sides have taken extreme positions. The former maintain that offspring of an interfaith marriage cannot be admitted, irrespective of gender. Liberals argue that offspring of all interfaith marriages be admitted.

Some time back I was reading an interesting article called "Defining moments,” where the writer described specific events in various religions that he called "defining moments” and crucial to that religion. Judaism had the handing of the 10 Commandments to Moses, Christianity, the crucifixion of Jesus (his suffering and yet forgiveness for his enemies), Islam, the "Hejira” (the flight from Mecca to Medina), Buddhism, when Lord Buddha achieved Nirvana. Does Zoroastrianism have such a "defining moment?” Was it the conversion of King Vishtasp, so that Zoroastrianism became the state religion? Perhaps the scholars amongst your readers have a view on this. One thing that has always intrigued me, as it also does non-Zoroastrian friends of mine in the UK, if conversion is not permitted, how did Zoroastrianism start and spread in the first place?

HOSHANG ANTIA

Hampshire, UK