“What the community wants”

Parsiana seems to be giving its online polls more legitimacy than they deserve ("What the community wants,” Editorial Viewpoint, Parsiana, August 21, 2014). Admittedly, the sample size (number of respondents) is "minuscule” (perhaps "elite” too?), and like any online poll, the results can easily and massively be skewed by like-minded groups. For example, someone could have emailed his/her circle of friends to take part in these polls in order to make their voices heard, while the majority of Zoroastrians worldwide have not participated. It is only Parsiana’s subscribers who know about these polls, and therefore once again, represent a small minority of the Zoroastrian population.
Another glaringly obvious shortcoming is that these polls do not address the suitability of respondents to even give an opinion on religious topics — religious ignorance is rampant in our community. Do the participants in these polls have even a basic understanding before responding? It’s akin to standing in a public place and asking random people for their opinions on basic physics topics, such as whether they believe light is a particle or a wave, then publishing these responses in order to show a consensus of "what the people want.” Would these passersby be competent enough to provide an opinion? Would accomplished physicists, who have in-depth knowledge of the topic, take these poll results seriously? To use a common metaphor: we are the fish in the fishbowl — all we know of the world around us is what we can see from our tiny, confined and distorted viewpoint.
Lastly, it should also be noted that ours is a divinely revealed religion, brought forth by our Prophet Zarathushtra. Would any survey respondents like to demonstrate even a glimpse of their divinity to establish their credentials to influence religious changes? Yes, it’s a laughable proposition -- myself and 94% of Parsiana readers agree!
PERVEZ MISTRY
Perth, Australia
pervez.mistry@gmail.com

The editors reply:
The editorial clearly states that we examined the data "with some trepidation” and that we were "unable to judge how accurately the results reflect the thinking of the community.”