Zoroastrians moved to India from Iran in two separate waves, the first circa 800 AD and another circa 1500 AD. There are Atashes (fire temples) in Udvada, just north of Mumbai that have been burning for over a millenia now.
Zoroastrians are, on average, wealthier compared to the average Indian population. They were the first Indian sub-group to learn English under British rule and were thus heavily involved in commercial endeavours, benefitting them monetarily.
The community is endogamous however and there are no conversions.
Most Zoroastrians have now migrated to Western countries, North America being a very popular destination, as are UK and Australia. There is still a Tower of Silence in the heart of Mumbai on some very prime real estate.
While I dislike your question[0], it is a really good question! Because you're correct that a reasonable number of Zorastrians may not consider converts Zorastrian. Frankly, I don't know, and I don't know what a quorum of Zorastrians would say (from my experience, the majority would consider them Zorastrian).
What I will say is, I do think this question/your perspective is archaic (sorry for the harsh words, I have biases too :P). And I'll try to explain in the most HN way possible (i.e. the reasoning which convinces me the most, about most things).
Personally, I don't know these people, it is unlikely you do either. By any reasonable estimate no person knows any other person. All we can know are the inputs and the outputs provided to the black box which is "a person". As such, I subscribe to the idea that, the only real test which can be applied is one suggested by Turing[1].
If these people, including Julia Roberts, act the part they claim to be, so well that in a "blind" assessment they act so flawlessly that the observer cannot tell otherwise, then until proven otherwise, they must be Zorastrian or Hindu.
P.S. I know I need to work on being more succinct :)
[0] Respectfully, - Are there any real Scotsmen? - If there is such a thing, what makes a real Zorastrian? - Which person/people alive have the right to judge?
[1] If you are aware of a better assessment technique, sincerely, I would be overjoyed to hear it!
That's not what a few google results tell me. It seems, in India the answer is definitely No, while in Iran the answer is Maybe. The Indian No is presumably to stop the religion dissipating, while the Iranian Maybe is a kind of "well, they're ancestors were probably Z anyway." In the West, people would follow the notion that there is a spiritual supermarket, and you just choose which flavour suits you, so it's a Yes there.
I don't prescribe to your Turing idea. People are not black box machines pretending to be humans. Rachel Dolezal was not black on one day and white on another.
Do not mix "Zorastrian" and "Parsi". "Indian Zorastrian"s is sometimes used by people not "in the know" to describe "Parsi"s. FWIW, sometimes even people "in the know" would use this lose equality while writing an article for people not "in the know".
You cannot convert into being Parsi. The same way you might be able to convert to Judaism, but you can only be born a Jew.
As such there maybe a misconception online about Indian Zorastrians' opinion on converting to become Zorastrian. Additionally, keep in mind regardless of the debate you'll always see the more passionate opinion publicized rather than the more apathetic opinion (i.e. "I don't care either way if they want to convert. Good for them").
I didn't mix Z and Parsi. I didn't even mention Parsi. I just can't find anything online which suggests Indian Zoroastrians accept converts. Just (dispassionate) explanations that they don't. And that's fine with me.
I've no doubt that there are some deracinated Parsis in the West that claim that "nobody minds" in order to make Z fit in with other religions. But that strikes me as almost a form of group suicide. If you feel that way about other groups it would end with their erasure. Why not just concrete over North Sentinel Island and turn it into a startup hub?
Reading this, my sister sent me a message. According to her,
Historically, inviting others to convert, from the wrong perspective, can look like an attempt to steal devouts. As refugees, in both India and Iran, they don't want to "push their luck".
However, the political climate has softened and continues to soften, and Zorastrians as I've said in other posts are very accepting of everything. You do not need to believe me, I only have empirical evidence, no facts or links for you. However, frankly, from a culture perspective, we have to be accepting. We owe our survival to the acceptance others gave us.
Because there really isn't a conversion process in Hinduism. You either are or you're not. In a way, it's not even a religion. See Atheism in Hinduism.
Uhh Hinduism is very much a religion. If you believe the same beliefs (consciousness is fundamental, atman = brahman, etc), why not say you're a Hindu?
There are a number of differences, though. Roberts isn't trying to claim that she was a cradle Hindu (Dolezal found a black man to claim to be her father, with the implication of being her birth father). Roberts isn't taking any leadership positions in Hindu organizations or trying to speak publicly as a Hindu; she's been quoted as specifically refusing to speak about religion. Other Hindus, one would assume, helped her in the process of deciding to convert. She isn't trying to claim any identity other than a person who happened to convert to Hinduism and is practicing Hinduism privately.
Even if trans-race were a reasonable thing (and the reasons that it's unreasonable are far too complicated to get into, and far too off-topic), Dolezal's actions and Roberts' actions would still be very different. Even if you lived in a world where trans-race were somehow legitimate, I'd imagine lots of people would still be uncomfortable about Dolezal's approach to it. But religious conversion, in general, has long been accepted, and Roberts' conversion is extremely normal as conversions go.
It is true that occasionally religious identities that have ethnic identities get complicated; as a random example, the Eastern Orthodox churches in the US have some trouble with this, since the communities overlap heavily with ethnic (Greek, Russian, etc.) identity, and there are occasionally some awkward spots when converts to Orthodoxy start gaining leadership roles in the church (which is reasonable!) and then trying to mold it into the vision of the church that they were looking for before their conversion. But I wouldn't doubt the seriousness of these converts' conversions, even so, and regardless, Julia Roberts is doing nothing of the sort.
"Roberts isn't ... trying to speak publicly as a Hindu"
I'm not sure this sounds like a reasonable standard to join any religion. "If you're a convert, shut up". Sounds like second class status. This stuff is too complicated for me.
I'm not saying it should be a standard, and in fact I would argue that it's a completely unreasonable standard. I mentioned, positively, converts to Eastern Orthodoxy who join the clergy. (One of the best known modern writers about Eastern Orthodoxy is Kallistos Ware, a metropolitan bishop, who converted from Anglicanism at age 24. Nobody would call him second-class!)
I'm just saying that it happens to be true for Roberts, and that this differentiates her case from Dolezal's.
In plenty of cases, the outsider or convert better understands the religion than the native believer. I saw a documentary about Mount Athos, and all the young Greek monks were admitting that being a monk was just a way to get out of the everyday grind. I'm sure the non-Greeks had greater sense of purpose because they had to go further (not just geographically, but spiritually)
Another data point, possibly unrelated: conversion to Judaism. I don't have a source for this, but I have heard (and it has been my personal experience as well) that religious observance is correlated to acceptance of converts. In other words, more religious Jews tend to be more tolerant of converts than less religious Jews. I think this is because you really can't "convert" to cultural Judaism, and the cultural Jews I have known have found the idea of it kind of repellant, similarly to this article about Rachel Dolezal I just read[1]. But in the case of Judaism, if you're culturally Jewish and don't see any value in the religion, all you have is your experience of day-to-day life as a Jew. You can't convert to being picked on for being Jewish. Or black, or Hindu. But I think that attitude is more about building walls than empathy. If someone comes to you saying they're a huge fan of your whole situation, kicking sand in their face and shouting "YOU DON'T KNOW ME!" doesn't make the world a better place.
The situation in Iran is complicated. Zoroastrianism is a protected group there, but it's extremely dangerous to be seen as welcoming converts in the Islamic republic. Simultaneously, to convert away is basically to accede a small amount of political power. I've heard (especially in Religion in Iran[2]) that there may be a Zoroastrian movement taking shape; as converts, those folks would certainly be welcoming of converts, but it's likely to make the established group anxious because if it gains too much attention it will lead to persecution of all Zoroastrians in Iran. So you have two overlapping marginal groups each trying to exaggerate the figures in opposite directions—which is sort of thematic for the kind of contradictions you see in Iran generally.
In the case of Judaism, Israel makes Orthodox conversion more useful since it doesn't accept you as a real Jew if you are a convert to a more weak tea version of Judaism. People who convert are usually stronger believers, so they would convert to the more undiluted version of the religion anyway.
On the other hand, 'cultural' Jews are more likely to marry non-Jews, and absorb them into Judaism that way. And I suppose this leads to cultural Jews leaving Judaism too. I think I read somewhere that the descendants of all the founders of Reform Judaism ended up outside Judaism.
> People who convert are usually stronger believers, so they would convert to the more undiluted version of the religion anyway.
That doesn't follow; converts are very often quite passionate about the beliefs of the group they convert to, and it's distinction form others, but that doesn't mean that they necessarily prefer the version that is seen as most pure by outsiders.
Israel will accept you for making aliyah with any conversion (or none, if you have even a small amount of Jewish blood). Being a "real Jew" in the eyes of Israel may have some cachet for someone... but I don't know anybody who made a decision about which movement to convert in on that basis. I also doubt seriously that the Orthodox movement experiences more conversion than the other movements. It's smaller than either the Reform or Conservative movements.
For making aliyah, you do not have to have an Orthodox conversion. This issue really only comes up for marriage. And of course, Israel has (in their typical fashion) chosen the solution guaranteed to annoy the most people.
I don't think any practicing Jew would make a distinction there. But Judaism predates distinctions of this sort—a fact that I think has irritated Western thought for thousands of years.
What do you think of Iranian zoroastrian?
what about Iranians in general?
-
I'm not a card carrying zoroastrian per se but I have affinity for the religion and I hope one day it will have a big resurgence
It was the religion of my ancestors after all
Whenever I do think about them, one of my primary thoughts are of sympathy and strength. Not for any current standpoint (I'm sure they are mostly fine these days) but historically, (as you're likely aware) they were forced to convert over to Islam or were killed. Most Zorastrians still in and around Iran, were only Zorastrian in secret. I can't imagine how the religion survived a few thousand years in that region despite that hostile environment.
Other than that, we "Parsis" consider "Iranis" Zorastrian, just as much as we are. However, we do not consider them Parsi. Similar-ish to the Protestant/Catholic sub-cultures.
Strange, as Parsi comes from the word Persi, or Persian. Rhythmically, Farsi is the language of the Persians. In Pakistan, we refer to native Farsi speaking people as Parsi, Persi, or Irani.
It is equally strange that when I say "Asian" you don't think about Indians/Pasistani/Sri Lankans/Bangladeshi people. I can't tell you why. It doesn't make any logical sense. I can just tell you that this is the case.
Like Asian, Parsi is a colloquialism first, a fact second.
I find the sentiment behind this comment difficult to understand.
On one hand i think you're saying you don't believe in Zoroastrianism enough to call yourself a devout, but on the other you want a big resurgence of people that do?
What about Zoroastrianism makes you wish for a comeback?
Hard to describe.
You can chalk it up to "resentment towards historical events". It saddens me when I think about the forceful change of religion/culture in my country.
As for why I'd like for it to make a come back 1. I believe in the core tenets of the religion itself 2. I see it as some kind of "justice being served/ restoration of ancestorial way of life"
The absolutely massive transformation of Iran practically overnight in the 600 to 800 AD era continues to surprise me, despite being from around that region. Can you recommend books / documentaries from the perspective of the Iranian people about how and why this change happened? I want to get more insight into why such a large and proud empire changed so radically in such a short period of time. I am largely familiar with the Arab / Muslim telling of the story.
The story goes: Islamic tribes began conquering the Persian empire. As they went, the population was given two options:
1. Convert.
2. Die.
3. (Option which wasn't provided) Run away.
FWIW, if you want more info about why your parent commenter seeks a "comeback" is likely related to how I call Zorastrian ideas "infectious" in another of my posts on this thread. Check it out. Let me know what you think.
Also the Persian Empire was recovering at the time (poorly due to a succession crisis) from a rather long and brutal war with the Eastern Roman Empire.
There were seven great houses in the Sassanid empire and in the last years of the empire, they had been in conflict with the Sassanid court in South West Iran due to, according to some historians, years of overtaxing to support the war against Rome. Concurrent with the war, there was a plague in Western Persia killing half the population in 628.
When the Muslims invaded, the two most powerful houses refused to fight, and returned to their land in north east Iran. This left a weakened Western Persia alone to fight the invasion, which it could not successfully do.
The British Archive article (OP), says that the holy book of the Zoroastrians was written sometime around 224-651.
Of course, the New Testament contains unambiguous and extensive references to Zoroastrianism so clearly it must be far older than the origin given for the Avesta.
so clearly Zoroastrianism is much older than the origin of the Avesta. Is there a generally accepted date of origin for the former?
> If you use successful people per capita as a metric, Parsis are likely on top of the list.
This is primarily due to their entrepreneurial spirit, and treating the British occupation of India as a ladder to success, rather than a insurrection towards their way of life (like most Indians at the time).
Additionally, I've never heard of Paris ever living on the street. They have predominantly been a part of the Indian middle class, even prior to rise of the Indian middle class. I can't speak for all Parsis but today they are mostly upper-middle class.
There is a strong culture of critical thinking, education[0], independence[2] and nepotism[3]. Every Parsi I know has at least graduated from highschool (that is a lie, my grandfather didn't but was successful regardless - he was an exception).
Additionally, most Parsis I know have the equivalent of a Bachelor's degree, and a large number have the equivalent of a Masters. Moreover, a double digit percentage of the Parsi youth today get a Bachelor's/Master's degree from London/Singapore/US/etc and then move home.
Of my ~20-30 male Parsi friends (i.e. my age group) in India, about 9-10 of them are pilots. And believe it or not, Indian pilots are paid in similar orders of magnitude to what AMZN/MSFT pay software engineers in India.
Others are CAs, or in advertising, there are a few who chose to work on oil rigs, some as divers. Of my 20 or so female Parsi friends, a few interior decorators, a few in advertising, a few air-hostesses, a couple CAs. All jobs which pay relatively well in India.
[0] Every single one of us speaks "British" English. We all study exclusively at English medium schools, even tho we are in India[1]. Only in intimate situations (i.e. only with each other, ~25% of the time) we speak Gujarathi/English with Gujarathi slang.
[1] FWIW, most Indians who studied in Indian English medium schools have better English comprehension and written skills than the average American/Canadian. Myself not included, I moved to Canada for highshcool/university forgive my poor grammar/spellings :P
[2] Kids understand they need to fend for themselves, even though they have generous safety nets and support structures, like living at home indefinitely. It is completely normal for women, even after marriage to work, and heavily encouraged before marriage.
[3] Nepotism which exists on this gradient: It is strongest for immediate family, continues strong for family, grows less and less important the more distant a family member you are, however, even a Parsi you've never met gets (if they are qualified) a job before an equally (or slightly more qualified) "other person".
I don't know the lineage or history of any specific family names. However, two facts I know:
- Many Parsis are named Metha and Patel
- Fleeing from Persia, the first Parsis landed their ships and took refuge in Gujarath.
Fun story (However, I don't know if it is factual):
Fleeing from Persia, their ships actually landed in many places but were not welcome. Finally, they landed in Gujarath, and the king of the land was kind and spoke with them, but rejected their plea for refuge.
The story goes: The king brought out a bowl filled to the brim with milk. A bowl so full it was impossible to fit another drop of milk. He said to the Persian refuges, "this is my kingdom, I'm sorry but as you can see, we will not be able to fit you". And the first Parsis understood, but asked the king, "can we have a spoon of sugar?". The king a bit confused, provided them a spoon of sugar. And they said, "We understand your kingdom is full. We do not want to take any of your room ..." They then very slowly (I imagine painstakingly) sprinkled the sugar into the bowl of milk. Emptying the spoon, and spilling no milk. "... We only want to help make your kingdom sweeter".
lol, I definitely see a sound future existence for rhetorical questions.
In all seriousness:
If you're describing Parsis, then likely no. People are not allowed to convert to being Parsi. It isn't a religion, it is a sub-culture. Legally in India, you're only Parsi if you were born to of a Parsi man. Dumb patriarcal rule, which dwindles the Parsi populations.
If you're describing Zorastians, I couldn't say. It seems unlikely to die, its lasted too long, I'm sure it'll stick if only for nostalgia. The liklyhood that in the future children will be born Zorastrian is improbable. However, to be Zorastrian you don't technically have to acknowledge it. To the best of my knowledge, if you act Zorastrian, you are Zorastrian. And the most important mantra among Zorastrians is "Good thoughts, lead to good words, lead to good deeds". Additionally, we are too accepting for our own good. Zorastrians to the best of my knowledge have no official restrictions. You're still Zorastrian if you gamble, if you drink, if you eat whatever. We are accepting of our culture's "death", accepting of other religions[1], accepting (even encouraged) to be critically minded. Sadly, while being critically minded, ends up creating a positively disproportionate number of Parsis becoming "successful"[0], it also means most of us are also critically minded towards religion (i.e. "is there even a god?").
I can expand on this last statement a bit more (in regards to Parsis, not Iranis - I don't know too much about Iranian Zorastrian cultural perspectives). I myself, and what I see of my friends, and their parents, we tend to respect god as if we believe, however, we don't act like we do. I myself, consider myself a poly-ideologist. And love to irritate my religious friends (of all faiths) with "I must believe in god. I pray when shit gets tough, but I don't irritate god by thinking about it the rest of the time." I myself, have come to realize that my Zorastrian/Parsi beliefs are foundational, but they do not provide the framework. I had to personally build my personal framework, originating from that foundation. Which it seems to me most others from my community do. Maybe this was intentional? Maybe this is just how the oldest religion alive had to evolve to scale/continue itself.
Finally, it's unclear what you mean by "your community's future existence", so I'll leave you with this. Long story short, I don't think these "brands" (i.e. Parsi, maybe even Zorastrian) will last. However, the mentality/ideology is infectious. Any child brought up around it adopts it. A lot of adults I've spoken to who are "apathetic" or "atheist" have actually reached similar/identical conclusions.
Hopefully, that answers your question.
[0] If you use successful people per capita as a metric, Parsis are likely on top of the list. As such I view a causal relationship with intelligence.
I'm also from a community that combines a religion with a tribal identity, so I left the question purposely vague since I have no idea which of these carries how much importance to Parsis.
Weirdly, until a few years ago, I'd only encountered Zoroastrianism in books about Alex the Great, Ancient Persia, etc. and for whatever reason figured it was an ancient religion that between the Muslims and Mongols, had died out a Millennium ago.
It was kind of a weird sensation then when someone mentioned to me that Feddie Mercury was from a Zoroastrian family. Like if I found out Jude Law had a sister that was a Vestal Virgin or something.
Indeed Freddie Mercury was a Parsi which is the term for Zoroastrian in India. It's believed they fled during the Arab conquest of Persia. I came across this article a while back on the Parsi community in India, that's a worth a read:
Yes, but that's an example of syncretism, the mixing of religious beliefs and practices. To extend the analogy to biological evolution, Yazidism is not the "missing link" between those religions, but rather an example of cross-pollination or hybridization.
Whilst I found the Hong Kong branch or influence of this religion interesting, one cannot help a desecendent of this religion - Manichaeism - has a major mark in chinese history and even recent literal culture.
The Ming dynasty was said to be found partially based on this religion. ...
I'll leave the sources up to other people, but the general idea is that the more dualistic parts of later Jewish theology might have originated with Zoroastrianism. Heaven, hell and the devil as God's antagonist supposedly weren't part of the story originally: the devil used to be an angel with a job description that placed him in opposition to humanity, but not God, and everyone went to Sheol after death.
I know HN has a big population of Indian readers. Avesta has close relationship to Vedic Hinduism. Eg: Avestan Mithra is the Vedic Mitra, Sanskrit Asura is Avestan Ahura, Vedic divinity Varuna and the Avestan deity Ahura Mazda.
The name for India in the Avesta is Hindu,Languange of Rig-Veda is closely related to language of Avesta. So on.
This is actually pretty cool; the similarity stems from the Proto-Indo-Iranian religion, which split into two branches, one going into Iran, and another into India. Zoroastrianism adopted these concepts and made a entirely new religion out of them.
It's interesting that Asuras are demonkind in Hinduism, but are gods in Proto-Indo-Iranian religion. It's especially interesting, because the word for Hindu gods or devas, is cognate with Deus, which is the word for God in Latin and Greek and other ancient European languages. So the split seems to have occurred after the Indo-Iranian and European branches forked.
> It's interesting that Asuras are demonkind in Hinduism
This particular notion might be difficult to relate to for those who are not familiar. The gods of hinduism do not occupy the position of infallibility, power and moral high ground that one may expect from a Abrahmic religion. Asuras are equal rivals, a bit unlucky at times. The gods' eternal and bitter contest with the Asuras for resources is filled with upmanship, deceit and all sorts of dirty tricks (played by both the parties), that would not only be considered immoral in the current context of but also the value system promoted by the Hindu philosphy. Somewhat similar to the Greek Titans.
The monotheism / polytheism line is also quite difficult to draw when it comes to Hinduism. It has flavors of both. Think of gods as very powerful daemon processes (some are shiny applications) but ultimately there is one kernel layer.
I really wish to visit Iran. It was out of question when I was a grad student in the US. Imight be a bit dicey evn now, and that is a crying shame.
The split is indeed very interesting & the mirror symmetry is very intriguing. I have wondered at it quite a bit over the years.
I do not think that the Prophet Zartosht (Zoroaster) (AS) adopted the shared roots, rather he pruned the proverbial collective burning bush of the Aryaman tribes.
His revelations, at least in form handed down to us, are in part very confident Q & A sessions with God, his "Friend", and to an extent include theological matter dismissing certain notions, practices, and spiritual agencies. One gathers that there was a sort of free for all in terms of appeal to higher agencies at his time, in the shared millieu of the region.
Note that there is a small hop from Persian Deev to Devil to counter balance the Deva to Divine. Zartosht's message was nothing if this: not all powers are pure (holy) and there is a Cosmic Choice to be made, and that this choice has eternal consequences. According to him, the Good is fundamentally Creative and Truthful. The evil is a destroyer and a liar. (Direct analog of which you can find in the Gospels.)
Accepting that, one can then easily map the Zoroastrian informative doctrine of 'Good thought, Good Speech, Good Action' to related Indian scripture (e.g. The Gita) and discourses on Karmic causality.
Interesting contrast on the vocabulary. A bit of Googling reveals a possible explanation:
>In the field of religion there are some interesting contrasts. Words such as devá have the meaning of god in the Vedas have the meaning of devil in the Avesta. Likewise some names for Vedic gods show up in the Avesta as evil spirits. This is likely due to the ancestors of the migrants to North India being a competing tribe of the tribe responsible for the creation of the Avesta.
>It's especially interesting, because the word for Hindu gods or devas, is cognate with Deus, which is the word for God in Latin and Greek and other ancient European languages.
There are many other such similarities, between Indian (ancient and modern) and European (ditto) languages:
Sanskrit: matru / Hindi: maata / Latin: mater / German: Mutter / English: mother: / Spanish: madre
Sanskrit: pitru / Hindi: pitaa / Latin: pater / German: Vater [1] / English: father: / Spanish: padre
[1] The V in German is pronounced like F in English, which in turn sounds somewhat like P in English.
From what little I admittedly know, 'gods' and 'demons' in Vedic traditions are more of clans than determiners of good or evil natures. In some epics gods do evil against good demons and vis versa in other works.
I suppose with enough human history in a culture you will be able to point to at least one example of anything.
You'd think just that. The Parsi community is generally highly regarded and for some reason many business leaders belong to it. The Tata family is probably the best-known exponent.
Endogamous-tending close-knit communities with cultural emphasis on education tend to have both high-trust and high-skill populations. Such groups are often well-placed to succeed in business.
Interesting religion this Zoroastrianism, arguably the first monotheistic religion. Been to Iran, even to Yazd few years back, which is still world centre for this religion having their holy fire burning for centuries (millenia?) in their temple. Freddie Mercury was one, albeit born in Zanzibar. Back then he was not very proud of it, I presume in layman's view it must have been akin to some witchcraft in UK.
Just behind the city of Yazd there are towers of silence - where they chopped their dead and left them to vultures - still used in '70s. I guess their cultural revolution stopped these practices, so now they just bury their dead in big concrete slab (not spoiling the elements like earth, water or air) behind the city.
Truly remarkable places to visit, before mass tourism will come (or US bombs the place for some obscure reason completely unrelated to oil and local power games). Cannot recommend enough! Just bear in mind you won't be able to go to US afterwards but... as non-US, I would always choose such a wonderful and welcoming country and great people over police state of US these days (as much as I like regular US folks, the system you guys live in leaves much to be desired)
> as non-US, I would always choose such a wonderful and welcoming country and great people over police state of US these days
The US certainly has many issues, but I find calling it a "Police State", while praising the Islamic Republic of Iran in the same sentence quite ironic.
Then educate thyself. Besides all the anedotal evidence of police militirazation, violence, the USA has THE largest prison population in the world and almost the highest % of population in prison, #2 (after seychelles) with 693 per 100k. Iran is way down list at #37 with 287.
> The US certainly has many issues, but I find calling it a "Police State", while praising the Islamic Republic of Iran in the same sentence quite ironic.
you mean, praising it as a tourist destination? How's that even controversial? Iran is an absolutely enchanting place to visit.
Now, agreed that calling the US a "police state .. these days" is still quite an exaggeration, but notice the context - the absolutely shocking, police-state-like US visa policy, mentioned in the prior sentence!
You only have to weaken the premise a bit to make it a perfectly sensible claim (and perhaps a bit of rethorical hyperbole is excusable?) : If the authoritarian behavior of the US government forces one to chose between visiting a place as beautiful as Iran, and visiting the US, surely that's an easy choice!
There's also a substantial Zoroastrian presence in India, for people not willing or able to travel to Iran. There are towers of silence there too, and are in active use. It may be a better place to visit if you wish to see the religion actively practiced.
> Just bear in mind you won't be able to go to US afterwards
It's worth clarifying that this isn't strictly true, at least for everyone. I've been in the US twice since visiting Iran for a few weeks in 2011, admittedly I got a bit of a grilling the first time, but second time around it didn't seem to cause any issues. However things have changed now that if you've visited Iran you're no longer eligible for the visa-waiver (if you're from a country that had that to begin with) so it does require a trip to the embassy for a visa before going to the US. I've yet to go through that process, so perhaps I'm being naive in assuming a visa will be forthcoming (at least for this pasty-faced Irishman).
It should be noted this should be taken with a grain of salt. The exact dates of the founding of Judaism and Zoroastrianism are not precisely known, and our best guesses vary by centuries. Atenism is probably the oldest monotheistic religion, but it's not certain.
> Try arguing immigration policy, environmental policy, basic income, minimum wages or any other liberal position on purely economic grounds
If only the world worked in purely economic terms. My guess is that you might be labeled such things, perhaps not fairly, when making such arguments because such arguments ignore a huge part of the equation: the social and cultural realities we live with that color those issues.
Note: I said "purely economic" and you essentially said: "But social".
See the danger? Intellectual discussions must now be passed through the filter of social narratives?
So pointing out any mathematical reality which has negative social implications is therefore a display of support for said negative social implications?
No. That's ridiculous. The world isn't rainbows and unicorns. And many morally commendable policies will and must fail mathematically.
Being the "messenger" that points out said mathematical realities isn't a display of support for fascism.
I'm afraid I don't follow your reasoning. There are policies that could be economically beneficial that are socially deleterious and vice/versa. My point is that assessing policies through purely an economic lens is an incomplete view: the world is not an economic simulation.
Also consider that perhaps there are social policies that are economically detrimental but perhaps they are considered worth the cost. There are human costs that economic models may not consider.
Pretty much all the "social" policies enumerated are about pricing negative externalities. It may not be Economics 101, but every last one of these things has genuine economic value.
More generally, economics doesn't exist in a vacuum: for a working system of trade, you need rules, enforcement and redress. Thinking you can consider one without the other is like thinking Newton's Laws are the last word in physics.
But Economics uses mathematics. Not for proofs (although some misled academics disagree), but for understanding of prior performance.
The real disaster is that mathematics is increasingly using economics and other social sciences as a filter for what is permissible to be calculated. :/
It's not about what you calculate, it's what you do with it and how you represent it.
Hypothetical scenario: you calculate that people from country A are twice as likely to commit a crime in country B when compared to native citizens of country B. Ok. What do you do with that? I'll tell you what you don't do: you don't round up everyone from country A and kick them out and justify it with "mathematics." That is an incomplete view.
Perhaps I'm sorely misunderstanding what problem you see so please correct me of that's so.
You're being reasonable, but this is not how everyone views it. In the real world today, many would say you should not publish or even collect that information regarding country A, because it might result in discriminatory behavior toward citizens of country A.
You're right. In the real world there are messy concerns and problems that aren't present in academia. Innocuous research can be used for nefarious means. If there is a chance of that happening, should the research be published? A very interesting (and very real) ethical question.
Zoroastrians are, on average, wealthier compared to the average Indian population. They were the first Indian sub-group to learn English under British rule and were thus heavily involved in commercial endeavours, benefitting them monetarily. The community is endogamous however and there are no conversions. Most Zoroastrians have now migrated to Western countries, North America being a very popular destination, as are UK and Australia. There is still a Tower of Silence in the heart of Mumbai on some very prime real estate.