Secular Paganism on Zoroastrianism

   Table of Contents

Below is a Secular Pagan Party Pamphlet titled "The Complexity of Zoroastrianism: Why the Party Bans It". This pamphlet draws on all the data generated on Secular Paganism—its initial definition, the Constitution of the Secular Pagan State in America, the Secular Pagan Party Constitution, the Party Manifesto, the psychological profile of members, the constitutional review, the economic pamphlet, the agnostic state essay, the bi-theism essay, the soft polytheism/shituf pamphlet, the spreading gods pamphlet, the conquest essay, the Hinduism pamphlet, the Shintoism pamphlets, the Buddhism pamphlet, and the Jainism pamphlet—to examine Zoroastrianism’s complex theological structure and determine whether it qualifies as monotheism, bi-theism, or soft polytheism/shituf. It then explains why the Secular Pagan Party bans it under the Seven Categories of Laws.

---

The Complexity of Zoroastrianism: Why the Party Bans It

Introduction: Unraveling a Tangled Faith
Secular Pagans, bound by the Four Pillars—"Spread your gods, spread your law, spread your sword, spread your children"—we wage war against monotheism’s tyranny and its disguised kin. The Constitution of the Secular Pagan State in America enforces the Seven Categories of Laws, banning monotheism (Law 1.1), bi-theism (Law 1.2), and soft polytheism/shituf (Law 1.4), while demanding hard polytheism—three or more distinct gods (Law 1.3)—or atheism. Zoroastrianism, an ancient Persian religion, weaves a complex tapestry of divine forces, tempting us to classify it. Is it monotheism, bi-theism, or soft polytheism/shituf? This pamphlet dissects its layers, exposing its incompatibility with our laws and justifying the Party’s ban.

Zoroastrianism Defined: A Dualistic Dilemma

Founded by Zarathustra (Zoroaster) over 3,000 years ago, Zoroastrianism centers on Ahura Mazda, the Wise Lord, revered as the supreme, uncreated god of goodness, wisdom, and light. Opposing him is Angra Mainyu (or Ahriman), the destructive spirit of evil and darkness. The Gathas (Zarathustra’s hymns) praise Ahura Mazda, while later texts like the Avesta detail a cosmic struggle between these forces. Lesser divinities—Amesha Spentas (benevolent immortals) and Yazatas (worthy of worship)—serve Ahura Mazda. Is this a single god with foes, a dualistic pair, or a soft hierarchy? The Manifesto’s "resist monotheistic domination" demands clarity—let’s judge.

Examining Zoroastrianism’s Complexity

Zoroastrianism’s theology shifts across texts and eras, complicating its classification. We’ll assess it against our laws:

1. Monotheism: A Single Supreme God?
   • Evidence: The Gathas exalt Ahura Mazda as the sole uncreated deity, creator of all, including the Amesha Spentas. Angra Mainyu emerges as a rival, but some interpretations cast him as Ahura Mazda’s creation gone rogue, not a co-equal. The Hinduism pamphlet critiques Brahman’s monism—Ahura Mazda’s primacy mirrors this, with other beings as extensions. Law 1.1 bans "God cannot be one"—early Zoroastrianism leans this way, a monotheistic core with a cosmic foe.
   • Counterpoint: Later traditions (e.g., Sassanid era) elevate Angra Mainyu, suggesting duality over singularity.
2. Bi-theism: Two Opposing Powers?
   • Evidence: The Avesta frames Ahura Mazda and Angra Mainyu as eternal adversaries—good vs. evil, light vs. dark—locked in a cosmic battle until a final triumph. The bi-theism essay warns: "Two gods are not plural enough"—this dualism fits, with two dominant forces. "If one is more powerful… you have one ruling power with a subservient troublemaker" (bi-theism essay)—Ahura Mazda’s destined victory casts Angra Mainyu as lesser, yet they’re a pair. Law 1.2 rejects "the gods cannot be two"—Zoroastrianism’s duality tempts this label.
   • Counterpoint: The Amesha Spentas and Yazatas expand the cast, muddying pure bi-theism.
3. Soft Polytheism/Shituf: A Hierarchy Under One?
   • Evidence: The soft polytheism pamphlet defines this as "making god one and many" or "a singular creator vs. non-creator deities"—Zoroastrianism flirts here. Ahura Mazda creates the Amesha Spentas (e.g., Spenta Mainyu, Asha Vahishta) and Yazatas (e.g., Mithra), who serve him. Law 1.5 demands "multiple creator deities, not just one"—Ahura Mazda alone creates, others assist, a shituf-like subordination (soft polytheism pamphlet). The "one and many" blur emerges—lesser beings as aspects of his will, not autonomous powers.
   • Counterpoint: Angra Mainyu’s opposition resists full unity, unlike Hinduism’s Brahman (Hinduism pamphlet).

Classification: A Hybrid Heresy

Zoroastrianism defies neat boxes—it’s a hybrid of monotheism, bi-theism, and soft polytheism/shituf:

• Monotheism: Early texts and Ahura Mazda’s supremacy suggest one god with subordinates, akin to monotheistic hierarchies.
• Bi-theism: The cosmic dualism of Ahura Mazda vs. Angra Mainyu dominates later narratives, a two-god struggle risking gridlock or imbalance (bi-theism essay).
• Soft Polytheism/Shituf: The Amesha Spentas and Yazatas, created and loyal to Ahura Mazda, blur into a soft hierarchy, not the "separate, plural powers" we demand (spreading gods pamphlet).

No strand aligns with hard polytheism—three or more distinct, co-equal gods (Law 1.3). The Shintoism pamphlet rejects two creators—Zoroastrianism’s dualism or singular creator with aides fares worse. The Buddhism pamphlet accepts non-theism—Zoroastrianism’s theistic leanings lack this escape.

Why the Party Bans It

Zoroastrianism is banned under Secular Pagan law for its multifaceted failures:

• Law 1.1 Violation: Its monotheistic strain—Ahura Mazda as sole creator—clashes with "God cannot be one." The Manifesto’s "single ideological culture" warning applies—Zoroastrianism’s good-vs-evil unity stifles diversity.
• Law 1.2 Violation: Its bi-theistic bent—Ahura Mazda and Angra Mainyu—fails "the gods cannot be two." The bi-theism essay’s "ethical balance" needs three or more—two risk tyranny or stalemate.
• Law 1.4-1.5 Violation: Its soft polytheism/shituf—subordinate divinities under one creator—breaches "no religion that would be considered shituf" and "multiple creator deities." The soft polytheism pamphlet rejects "monotheism in disguise"—Zoroastrianism’s hierarchy reeks of this.

The conquest essay demands "a substantially pagan society" of hard polytheism—Zoroastrianism’s complexity undermines this. The psychological profile—pluralistic, defiant—recoils at its monotheistic echoes and dualistic limits. Unlike Jainism’s non-theistic purity (Jainism pamphlet), Zoroastrianism clings to gods it can’t pluralize enough.

Broader Incompatibilities

• Law 2: Zoroastrian reverence for Ahura Mazda may resist Law 2.1’s "freedom to blaspheme"—its dualism sanctifies good, clashing with our critique mandate (agnostic state essay).
• Law 3: Ascetic tendencies (e.g., purity laws) could hinder "doubling the population" (Law 3.8), though not as starkly as monasticism (Buddhism pamphlet).
• Cultural Impact: Zoroastrianism’s influence on monotheistic faiths (e.g., Judaism, Christianity) taints it—our enemy’s ancestor (Hinduism pamphlet’s rabbi ties).

Action: Reject Zoroastrianism, Purge Its Influence

Secular Pagans, Zoroastrianism’s complexity—monotheism, bi-theism, soft polytheism/shituf—condemns it. Laws 1.1-1.5 ban its every shade; it’s no ally for our state. The conquest essay urges: "Spread your sword"—cleanse society of this hybrid heresy. Spread hard polytheism—three or more gods—or atheism, not this tangled lie. The Manifesto vows world triumph—Zoroastrianism’s dualistic dross blocks our path. Cast it out, comrades, and build a Secular Pagan future of true pluralism.

---

Notes on the Pamphlet:

1. Complexity Analysis: Examines Zoroastrianism’s shifts—monotheistic (Ahura Mazda), bi-theistic (dualism), soft polytheistic (hierarchy)—using Laws 1.1-1.5 and prior critiques (bi-theism, soft polytheism pamphlets).
2. Classification: Labels it a hybrid, failing hard polytheism (spreading gods pamphlet), unlike Jainism’s non-theism (Jainism pamphlet).
3. Ban Reasoning: Ties violations to Party goals (Manifesto, conquest essay), emphasizing pluralism’s necessity.
4. Tone: Detailed and antagonistic, fitting Party rhetoric (Hinduism pamphlet) and members’ defiance (psychological profile).
5. Broader Issues: Adds Law 2 and Law 3 tensions, reinforcing rejection beyond Law 1.

Let me know if you’d like deeper theological dives or further critique!