Religious Based Asset Development

[Number 96]

Our community has many problems, and as the flame bearers of generations to come, these issues will fall upon us as they have our parents.

Recent conversations have further supported a notion I have harboured concerning the global Zoro community - people are aligning themselves toward a political perspective (i.e. reformist or conservative). Personally, this only seems like fuel to a fire; politics are the reason ALL religions are failing across the globe. It is us humans that destroy something beautiful and perfect.

After all, isn’t there a great deal of good that comes out of some reform? Can not the staunch conservative teach us using history how to improve the religion for the future? Why is it people from both “sides” are not participating in discussion to overcome issues we are facing? Surely, there are things polar opposing political-religious groups disagree on BUT more important is what they do agree on, can work on and improve on.

In my opinion, we need to think of ways to see past our differences and look within our similarities. The people who bother to post, argue, think, speak, read etc. obviously care enough about the religion for them to do so. There will of course be those who remain apathetic, but by and large those on this forum show concern and rationale. It is with this thought that I realize this forum is a suitable one to create new solutions for old problems.

Below are issues that are both controversial and stonewalled. There has not yet been progression past these issues agreeable to each polar perspective’s values.

1 – Conversion
2 – Intermarriage

MY INTENT IS NOT TO HAVE THESE ABOVE ISSUES DISCUSSED HERE.

There are also issues that are not so flammable yet some how are not recognized or at least do not have the same level of debate nor attention.

1 – Priests, their well being and advancement of priesthood (decrease in new priests, respect for their position in our community and religion, status)
2 – Increasing awareness of the shrinking religion (assimilation vs. isolation)
3 – Youth initiatives and inclusion (identity loss, lack of religious education and understanding)

And of course my favourite:

4 – Unity of people adhering to either political faction (how to facilitate civil discussion around the taboo issues)

We are of the same people and believe the same philosophy. It is foreseeable that we should each have something positive to add pertaining to the latter 4 issues mentioned above.

-Rayomand

[Jimmy]

Rayo.... in a rush ...but your last sentence illustrates the whole problem with conservatives and liberals talking out important issues. They dont believe the same philosophies. If by philosophy you mean good thoughts, words, deeds, then yes sure we agree there. But I think i have more in common with a Conservative Christian/Muslim/Jew than I have in common with a very liberal Zoroastrian.

Secondly your thoughts on separating religion from politics is a noble one and I sure wish that was possible. However in the case of the first group...as you can see in india now there are groups who are working very hard to promote the welfare of the preist in general, however they do so with political intentions not really because they really give a crap about the priest or the religion. (ok thats really overarching and cynical but thats my thoughts) I know there are good folks out there who really do care but to say the big guys dont have an agenda is a bit naieve.

Increasing awareness about the 'shrinking religion'... I really challenge you to have that convo with either conservatives or liberals and see if issues 1 and 2 dont come up.

I realize that you think that i may have blinders on and think that problems 1 and 2 need to be overlooked so that we can move forward as a community. I think its the opposite: Untill problems 1 and 2 are fully addressed we will not prosper as a community. We can sweep it under the rug and ignore the huge white elephant in the room... but its only going to come back to bite us in the end.

[Jamsheer]

Jimmy, what do you mean by "fully addressed...?" What resolution will satisfy you?

[Jimmy]

A solution that I would find mutually acceptable is that the liberals did what they wanted to do without interfereing or trying to control historically traditional places of worship/baugs/colonies etc etc. This way they get to do what they want and we get to do what we want. We built the agyari's and Atash Behrams and do everything in our power to ensure they are maintained to our standards. If they have different standards why should we be forced to follow them? Why should they be forced to follow ours?

You can eat, dance, play, sing, work together, but when it comes to controlling anything religious there is always going to be a fight. Its so deep rooted that it will eventuall seep into the non-religious aspects as well and sour things for both sides. Is it possible to live happily under one roof, sure but its highly improbable.

[Jamsheer]

So, its the "Us vs. Them" argument. Disappointing, and sad to hear, buddy. We are one, and in spite of our differences, we should try to remain as one. It is our banding together as one community in the face of outside forces that has maintained and protected us todate. If we start splitting up then I see a future a few decades down the line where we become like the muslim shias and sunnis. Basically the same religion, but cannot stand each other, and even kill in the name of religion.

[Jimmy]

How long can we pretend that what the liberals and conservatives follow is the same religion? Its not. Its fundamentally very different. Its not all happy-happy nice-nice as i would like but its the truth. Whats more is that both sides are essentially forcing the other to change. Where is the freedom in that? How is that right? What the liberals are asking the conservatives to accept and swallow goes against everything they stand for. (and proabably vice versa) With that type of extreme opposite thoughts how do you expect anyone to get along? You see violence if we split? While I dont see violence (internal) ever for our small group, if we keep forcing things down other peoples throats its not going to be a pretty scene. If we were truly one then we should have stayed as one in thought. These issues are binary, unfortunately there really is no middle ground. I hate to be glum but these are my thoughts.

[Jamsheer]

Liberals and Conservatives DO follow the same religion. I do not presume to judge someone else for following Zoroastrianism in a way that is different from me, and I would appreciate the same courtesy in return.

People follow religion as they see it because their thoughts, ideas, customs, traditions, ideals etc. are different from others. The flowing, inclusionary nature of religion gives it it's inherent beauty.

All Zoroastrians build atash behram's, agyari's etc. Nowhere does it say these places of worship were built by "conservative" zoroastrians. Once we go down this path of building seperate locations for liberals and conservatives, where will it end? What about the moderates? Where will they go? The proverbial "no man's land?" Such concepts reek of fear, arrogance and self-importance. We are all Zoro's, there is no "us/we...them."

[Jimmy]

Again, Jamsheer, I respectfully beg to differ.

First, my previous post may have come off rude or arrogant, didnt mean to make it sound that way. Im not saying that conservatives are better or liberals are worse... I am not judging anyone. I am sticking straight with the facts that the conservatives and liberals are different. Period. No better or worse.

We may follow the same religion on paper, but when we argue about something as simple as "What is the definition of a Zoroastrian" ... if we cant agree on something as fundamental as that concept, that is a really big issue. It is an issue of identity at its very core. I simply cannot relate or identify with most of what liberal Zoroastrians do/practice/believe in the name of religion, and probably vice versa.

"thoughts, ideas, customs, traditions, ideals etc." Are more of cultural nuances which Parsi's tend to get commingled in the Religious sphere. This is the other part to this equation. Liberals on the whole place less of an importance on the rituals and tenets of our religion; but further even wish to change them. Whereas the conservatives find it paramount to maintain them as is.

We cant agree on identity or rules, or rituals, ... what else is left?

Lastly, all zoroastrians build Atash Behrams? Agyaris? ... Atash Behrams, agyaris were not built by tradtional/conservative minded folks? Perhaps you should re-think or research those statements. Atash behrams and Agyaris dont just get built, they get consecrated. Not only were they consecrated by conservative zoroastrians (i.e. the high priests who were absolutely without a doubt not just conservative, but super conservative). Thousands of man hours of prayers along with maintaining the strictest spritual and physical purity while performing numerous rituals led to their consecration. Furthermore, they were built and are owned by the founding families who paid to have them consecrated (not the Parsi Population), all of which were conservative minded and only intended the use of the Atash Behrams for Parsi's only. Remember all the signs outside of our places of worship? It may not explicitly say 'liberals keep out' but if a Zoroastrian who married out or their non-zoroastrian spouse and children are not allowed to enter per the rules of the premise, wouldn’t you take that as conservative minded? (the latter may not be enforced due to politics seeping in and priests have no powers, therefore no one to enforce the rules, but that is a separate issue alltogether).

[Jamsheer]

Jimmy, we can differ, we can disagree...that's alright. I have no problems with that. It leads to discussion, which is good.

Conservatives and liberals may be different, but that does not make either of them less zoroastrian, whatever that entails.

Let me put it to you this way: at the time most atash behram's and agyari's were built/consecrated, they were done so by people who mostly believed in the same thing. They canot be called conservatives, they can be called religious/spiritual. However, due to the passage of time, relocation, etc. some peoples' values have changed. That does not make them any better or worse than others, it is just a natural progression and evolution. Labeling people as one or the other does not help, it just makes their spines stiffen and then more determined to prove their "right" or "righteousness" over the other side.

My one big worry with different places of worship for liberals and conservatives is if one side starts barring the other from entering. That could then lead to tit-for-tat responses on both sides in terms of praying, friendship, marriage etc. That leads to what i was referring to earlier in the case of some muslims.

[Number 96]

Originally Posted by Jamsheer

So, its the "Us vs. Them" argument. Disappointing, and sad to hear, buddy. We are one, and in spite of our differences, we should try to remain as one. It is our banding together as one community in the face of outside forces that has maintained and protected us todate. If we start splitting up then I see a future a few decades down the line where we become like the muslim shias and sunnis. Basically the same religion, but cannot stand each other, and even kill in the name of religion.

Jamsheer mate you have articulated the very reason I wrote this thread. I am impressed how similar our thoughts on this particular topic seem to coincide.

Jum, you have made some interesting points and I think Jamsheer has done a great job discussing them. The only points I could think of that were left out are as follows.

1 -

Originally Posted by Jimmy

We may follow the same religion on paper, but when we argue about something as simple as "What is the definition of a Zoroastrian" ... that is a really big issue. It is an issue of identity at its very core. I simply cannot relate or identify with most of what liberal Zoroastrians do/practice/believe in the name of religion, and probably vice versa.
[/color]

Jum firstly, I think that Zoroastrian identity is slightly different for everyone. The way we pray and the purpose behind our religion is one that makes it stand out from the rest. That is that each Zoro is blessed with conscious and the power to do what it is they feel is right for the sake of righteousness. The two themes repeated constantly in the Gathas are that of Truth and Righteousness. These are the fundamentals of Zoro philosophy.

2 -

Originally Posted by Jimmy

Increasing awareness about the 'shrinking religion'... I really challenge you to have that convo with either conservatives or liberals and see if issues 1 and 2 dont come up.

I think its the opposite: Untill problems 1 and 2 are fully addressed we will not prosper as a community. We can sweep it under the rug and ignore the huge white elephant in the room... but its only going to come back to bite us in the end.

I agree these issues need to be tackled. But I feel we would be better equipped to take them on once we have agreed on the foundation principals that link us. This thread is an attempt to build those foundations.

3 -

Originally Posted by Jimmy

A solution that I would find mutually acceptable is that the liberals did what they wanted to do without interfereing or trying to control historically traditional places of worship/baugs/colonies etc etc.
We built the agyari's and Atash Behrams and do everything in our power to ensure they are maintained to our standards. If they have different standards why should we be forced to follow them? Why should they be forced to follow ours?

Is it possible to live happily under one roof, sure but its highly improbable.

This argument is completely exclusionary based. Segregating populations is neither an answer nor a fix by any means. Our religions small population has thus far meant we are not subjected to meaningless violence that other religions are. Imagine if humans did not ruin the beauty of Islam or Christianity and there were only one faction of each religion…. It would literally be a different world today.

It is fear that divides and rapes religion of its meaning. Let us not follow the same path other religions have gone down.

The point of religion and prayers are not only personal and based on guidance. They are also intrinsically although fortuitously built towards growth and unity. People should practice TOGETHER. People should relate and converse. Our religion does not exclude – it brings people together.

4 -

Originally Posted by Jimmy

Whats more is that both sides are essentially forcing the other to change. Where is the freedom in that? How is that right?

I agree – there is no freedom in total compromise. But TOTAL compromise is not necessary for the two factions to cooperate. Just because it isn’t easy doesn’t mean you give up and divide the religion into groups. It means you have civil discussion, find common belief and try to develop it.


Lastly, I understand that people reading this will not instantly change their opinion, but that is not the point of the thread. I am hoping we can come closer to solutions of the topics raised in the first post…

-Rayo

[Jimmy]

Originally Posted by Jamsheer

Let me put it to you this way: at the time most atash behram's and agyari's were built/consecrated, they were done so by people who mostly believed in the same thing. They canot be called conservatives, they can be called religious/spiritual. However, due to the passage of time, relocation, etc. some peoples' values have changed. That does not make them any better or worse than others, it is just a natural progression and evolution. Labeling people as one or the other does not help, it just makes their spines stiffen and then more determined to prove their "right" or "righteousness" over the other side.

My one big worry with different places of worship for liberals and conservatives is if one side starts barring the other from entering. That could then lead to tit-for-tat responses on both sides in terms of praying, friendship, marriage etc. That leads to what i was referring to earlier in the case of some muslims.

Yea I guess you are right, when 95% of the population believes what we term as conservatisim today then yes there was no disctinction back then. But the fact still remains that they were constructed under conservative laurels for conservative folks. You NEVER saw someone even dare try to bring a Non-Zoroastrian in the temple or at the Dokhma in those days and if they tried, well they would have gotten it. If you were to ask any of the priests who consecrated the dokhmas and Atash behrams if we should be allowing non-parsi's or parsis who were married outside , their spouces, or children into our places of worship their answer would be a resounding NO.

The problem is Liberalism from abroad is facing resistance from conservatives abroad. Therefore they find it necessesary to cut us out at our roots. As one of the people running for BPP said "Parsi's must be wiped out so that Zoroastrianism can survive" Jamsheer I urge you to really look closer at this situation that we are facing. Unlike the conservatives, the LIberals of our religion do NOT employ a live and let live ideology. Conservatives are unanimous that as long as our religious rules/places of worship are respected liberals can do whatever they want. Liberals on the other hand insist that they and whoever else be allowed into our places of worship etc. If that is allowed to happen there is no conservatism left. You may take this as dramatic but I have heard liberals say time and itme again "i cant wait for you guys to be wiped out/exticnt/die off" etc etc. Thats the ideology that we are faced with. So can you blame us for defending our viewpoints and ideology?

[Jimmy]

RAYO:

1) Again, us Z's have the power of will to do what is right.. not change the rules of our religion, that would be.. well.. wrong!

2) Ray, besides good thoughts good thoughts, words, deeds, the name Zoroastriansim and the farvarhar.. what links so called Conservatives with so called liberals.. what is their common ground? Name one thing that both sides wish to preserve and perpetuate into tomorrow. We can take it from there if you can find something.

3) " Segregating populations is neither an answer nor a fix by any means. Our religions small population has thus far meant we are not subjected to meaningless violence that other religions are." Its interesting you mentioned this. The Militant wing of Islam has threatend the BPP that if we started to convert we would be met with "fire and sword" ... Is this something thats really going to help our population or hurt it.. lets think.. millions of them.. thousands of us. You want us to pray together, again how is that possible when conservatices believe that non -Zs cannot enter the places of worship. We arent going to budge on that rule, and why should we be forced to?

4) Little things here and there we can comprimise on.. shoot we HAVE TO. There is no way anyone can practice everything that we are supposed to do. How can we come together when one side wants change an the other wants to preserve. They are fundamental opposites. The more you try and force both sides to live together the more things are going to boil over. The only middle ground is one where each side minds thier own business and lets the other do what they want.

[Jamsheer]

Originally Posted by Jimmy

Yea I guess you are right, when 95% of the population believes what we term as conservatisim today then yes there was no disctinction back then. But the fact still remains that they were constructed under conservative laurels for conservative folks. You NEVER saw someone even dare try to bring a Non-Zoroastrian in the temple or at the Dokhma in those days and if they tried, well they would have gotten it. If you were to ask any of the priests who consecrated the dokhmas and Atash behrams if we should be allowing non-parsi's or parsis who were married outside , their spouces, or children into our places of worship their answer would be a resounding NO.

The problem is Liberalism from abroad is facing resistance from conservatives abroad. Therefore they find it necessesary to cut us out at our roots. As one of the people running for BPP said "Parsi's must be wiped out so that Zoroastrianism can survive" Jamsheer I urge you to really look closer at this situation that we are facing. Unlike the conservatives, the LIberals of our religion do NOT employ a live and let live ideology. Conservatives are unanimous that as long as our religious rules/places of worship are respected liberals can do whatever they want. Liberals on the other hand insist that they and whoever else be allowed into our places of worship etc. If that is allowed to happen there is no conservatism left. You may take this as dramatic but I have heard liberals say time and itme again "i cant wait for you guys to be wiped out/exticnt/die off" etc etc. Thats the ideology that we are faced with. So can you blame us for defending our viewpoints and ideology?

Jimmy, I am looking at the situation very closely and I am very concerned. I can honestly say that I have never heard either side say things like "wiped out" or "die off" etc. If that is the case, then that kind of talk is certainly not on, I don't care who said it. I do not disagree with a lot you say, but I do disagree on a few points. Having said that, I am glad that we are able to discuss and communicate our opinions freely without finger pointing. That is very important. I fear that this situation will never be resolved amicably and to the satisfaction of everyone. Perhaps the answer lies in taking a public world-wide vote on the major issues and let the majority decide. That may put an end to this constant bickering once and for all and we as a community could move on. Doubt it though!

[Jimmy]

Originally Posted by Jamsheer

Perhaps the answer lies in taking a public world-wide vote on the major issues and let the majority decide. That may put an end to this constant bickering once and for all and we as a community could move on. Doubt it though!

Even still then.. You are going to have a group of disenfranchised people who will refuse to accept the outcome no matter where it falls. They will udoubtedly split and do their own thing. You cannot stop the inevitable. Other religions have gone down this road. NONE of them today really take the 'we are one people' standpoint (unless attacked by an outside group..but then they go back to being separate entities) In a way its sad but at the same time its just not realistic to say that we are. No one is going to be told what to do in the religious realm via a vote. If there was a vote that forced you to follow something that was fundamentally against what you believed in, would you follow it? I know I wouldnt. I agree its great to discuss these things politely, perhaps somewhere there lies an answer to this mess.

[Behram]

Interesting discussion with both sides having very valid points of argument and the best part of this debate is its so rational, polite and dignified unlike the ones on other websites / blogs.

Why have the liberals become liberal ? What is it that has pushed them away from their religion and their traditions ? Conversely how have the conservatives retained their traditional values and not changed with the times ?

Can we enumerate the reasons ? I can see some light at the end of the tunnel.

[Jimmy]

you see liberals and conservatives both in their own right want to 'save' the religion they just have drastically differing opinions on how to do so. 'liberals' want it to open up to everyone and change with the times, as our ancient religion is too old for the modern day. 'Conservatives' just want to do what we have been doing for milllenia. They believe that no mere mortal has the power to change the religion for their fancy and to do so would only set us back and would forsake our forefathers who sacrificed everything to save what shreds we have remaining today.

[Behram]

So as I see it the answer lies in educating the liberals. If the liberals feel the religion is too old and laws and customs which existed 9000 years ago are not applicable now, they should be somehow convinced that laws of nature do not change with time. If the sun rises in the east today, it did so 9000 years ago. After all zoroastrianism is all about being in tune with nature and that the adage good thoughts, good words, good deeds are only relative. What maybe good for one maybe bad for another and secondly what was good 9000 years ago may not be good at all today.

So where do we draw the line? The next solution lies in turning towards our scriptures. But there is again a catch 22 situation. Only 5% of our scriptures are intact, the rest having being destroyed by Alexander and the Arab invasion. This means though we can give scriptural references, all questions cannot be answered by scriptures alone. Which is why as many scholars, as many translations and as many opinions. So how do the conservatives answer the doubting Thomas’s ?

On the other hand the liberals argue that what appears "rational" and "logical" to the human psyche needs to be accepted, the rest to be discarded or modified. The question here is rational to whom? Rationality differs from person to person and also is dependant on change of environment. Is the human mind capable of perceiving rationalty as it pertains to truths of nature? Here too what appears rational today may not be the same tomorrow. Even science discredits most of its past theories and these theories change with time and with advancement in science they too fall flat.

Where do we go from here ?

[Zmanuk]

Originally Posted by Number 96

Our community has many problems, and as the flame bearers of generations to come, these issues will fall upon us as they have our parents.

Recent conversations have further supported a notion I have harboured concerning the global Zoro community - people are aligning themselves toward a political perspective (i.e. reformist or conservative). Personally, this only seems like fuel to a fire; politics are the reason ALL religions are failing across the globe. It is us humans that destroy something beautiful and perfect.

After all, isn’t there a great deal of good that comes out of some reform? Can not the staunch conservative teach us using history how to improve the religion for the future? Why is it people from both “sides” are not participating in discussion to overcome issues we are facing? Surely, there are things polar opposing political-religious groups disagree on BUT more important is what they do agree on, can work on and improve on.

In my opinion, we need to think of ways to see past our differences and look within our similarities. The people who bother to post, argue, think, speak, read etc. obviously care enough about the religion for them to do so. There will of course be those who remain apathetic, but by and large those on this forum show concern and rationale. It is with this thought that I realize this forum is a suitable one to create new solutions for old problems.

Below are issues that are both controversial and stonewalled. There has not yet been progression past these issues agreeable to each polar perspective’s values.

1 – Conversion
2 – Intermarriage

MY INTENT IS NOT TO HAVE THESE ABOVE ISSUES DISCUSSED HERE.

There are also issues that are not so flammable yet some how are not recognized or at least do not have the same level of debate nor attention.

1 – Priests, their well being and advancement of priesthood (decrease in new priests, respect for their position in our community and religion, status)
2 – Increasing awareness of the shrinking religion (assimilation vs. isolation)
3 – Youth initiatives and inclusion (identity loss, lack of religious education and understanding)

And of course my favourite:

4 – Unity of people adhering to either political faction (how to facilitate civil discussion around the taboo issues)

We are of the same people and believe the same philosophy. It is foreseeable that we should each have something positive to add pertaining to the latter 4 issues mentioned above.

-Rayomand

Why not Rayomand ??, this is a youth forum after all, how can we tackle the future without unpolarising Item 1 & 2 first.

There is so much in what you three have to say. Why not discuss, perhaps, a moratorium for Z intermarrieds, First, to have their children attend a college of 'Z' education and then choose to Navjote or otherwise.
Perhaps understand the nature of why the items 1 & 2 are so polarising to the adults and by extension the youth.

[faredoon]

Originally Posted by Behram

So as I see it the answer lies in educating the liberals. If the liberals feel the religion is too old and laws and customs which existed 9000 years ago are not applicable now, they should be somehow convinced that laws of nature do not change with time. If the sun rises in the east today, it did so 9000 years ago.

--SNIP--

Originally Posted by Behram

The question here is rational to whom? Rationality differs from person to person and also is dependant on change of environment. Is the human mind capable of perceiving rationalty as it pertains to truths of nature? Here too what appears rational today may not be the same tomorrow. Even science discredits most of its past theories and these theories change with time and with advancement in science they too fall flat.

You got that right Behram, the laws of nature have not changed for a VERY long time indeed, for far more than just a couple of thousand years.

"Rational" would mean anyone who looks at evidence and makes logical deductions based on it.

Coming to your point of scientific theories "falling flat": Any scientist would, without batting an eyelid, gladly abandon a lifetime of research if new evidence presents itself that exhibits laws of nature that are different from the ones on which current scientific laws are based.
On the contrary, a religious person would never do that with his/her scriptures. If a deeply religious person's rational thought is tainted by, say, scriptural beliefs, then that's his/her problem.

So, you're probably saying the same thing when you said "What appears rational today may not be the same tomorrow" - just not in so many words.

[faredoon]

Jimmy,

I think it would be heartening to see the so-called conservative side accept the fact that their religion and scriptures are not infallible, and that they are subject to scrutiny and criticism like all other religions and texts.
The argument that the religion is old and carefully preserved is noble, but unfortunately fallacious. Just because something is old or antiquated does not automatically exempt it from criticism.

The scriptures are inherently not factual in nature. Additionally, their translations, speaking about the ones mainly for the English-speaking world which came about by efforts of Western scholars, are known to have had problems with interpretations. Yes, these are the same texts that have been followed for centuries by Parsis before they were interpreted by Western scholars, but the texts themselves are not perfect. For e.g. the most basic of them, the Gathas, although being the prophet's own words were reproduced based on verbal transfer. Later texts have been passed down over centuries, destroyed and restored over millennia, across different governments and political rules.
I am quite surprised to see the overweening confidence of the conservatives in the verity of religious elements and their passage across politically and culturally tumultuous periods in its history. If they could admit that their "version" is not a special one that commands special treatment, that it's merely just another version, it would be a huge leap forward.

This is not a case in defense of the so-called "liberal" cause. All I am saying is that before the conservatives arm themselves with ammunition to counter the liberals, the least they can do is make sure that it can hold it's ground.

Originally Posted by Jimmy

you see liberals and conservatives both in their own right want to 'save' the religion they just have drastically differing opinions on how to do so. 'liberals' want it to open up to everyone and change with the times, as our ancient religion is too old for the modern day. 'Conservatives' just want to do what we have been doing for milllenia. They believe that no mere mortal has the power to change the religion for their fancy and to do so would only set us back and would forsake our forefathers who sacrificed everything to save what shreds we have remaining today.