“Danger path”

Noshir Daboo’s letter "Danger path” (Readers’ Forum, Parsiana, May 7, 2006) was interesting in that it naturally described the current conflict between our conservative/orthodox brothers and our reformist/liberal friends. But his use of the word "Protestant” struck a chord. Catholicism was the mainstream, if not the only branch of Christianity before the arrival of Martin Luther. And then came the Protestants, followed by, I believe many other strands of Christianity (Mormons, Methodists, Quakers, etc). Does Zoroastrianism, like Christianity, need a formal split, akin to the split caused by the teachings of Martin Luther? This letter is not judgmental, and there are many far better informed than I to offer an opinion.

Initially the Christian split was bloody and extremely painful; one would hope that we, in the 21st century should be far more enlightened and peaceful. There is still conflict in Northern Ireland, but this is as much a political as it is a religious conflict. Apart from this, Catholics and Protestants live peacefully together. If the Zoroastrian faith were to be similarly split, the same would apply after a few difficult decades. Think about it – at present Zoroastrians are "divided” on "sort of” geographical grounds (Irani and Parsi Zoroastrians), and on "clerical” grounds i.e. athornans and behdins. Is there any other grouping? I have never understood Shahenshahis and Kadmis.

So should there be "Catholic” Zoroastrians and "Protestant” Zoroastrians, the former would have their own agiaries, where only Catholic Zoroastrians would be welcome, mixed marriages would not be allowed, and non-Catholic Zoroastrians would not be allowed at jashans, funerals and other religious functions. "Protestants” on the other hand would freely admit the children of mixed marriages; jashans and funerals could be attended by anyone. Facts regarding the life and teachings of Zarathushtra would remain unchanged, and would be shared by both branches, as would the celebration of Navroz and Pateti, just as all Christians celebrate Christmas.

Differences would then evolve naturally — just as Catholic churches are more ornate, Catholics "cross” themselves, virtually worship the Virgin Mary. So inevitably differences in style and substance between Zoroastrians will also evolve. Maybe the Catholic Zoroastrians may ban divorce, abortions and birth control, but the Zoroastrian Protestants would probably not.

Many would argue that a split already exists, though not formally. It would need a Zoroastrian Martin Luther to wring the change and of course a Zoroastrian Pope to try and prevent such a split, as was the case in Germany! It would perhaps be fair to say that whereas the Zoroastrian "Catholic” population would continue to fall, the "Protestant” population would probably not, thus at least ensuring the continuation of our faith in some form or another. So the former would be "pure and proud,” whereas the latter with the infusion of fresh blood, perhaps resulting in different talents, and dare I say it, tribulations? Mind you, the Jewish faith, equally divided between conservatives/orthodox and liberals/reformists, has not as far as I know, seen it necessary to effect a formal split, so you may argue, why should we?

I end on a lighthearted note. Are there any "takers” for the adversarial roles of Martin Luther and the Pope? Interested parties to please send your detailed resumes. Whatever our differences, Zoroastrians should never ever lose their sense of humor and fun. We remain sane that way!

RUMI COOPER

Middlesex, UK