From a purely biological point of view, saying that a child born to a Parsi father (married to a non-Parsi) is a Parsi, while one born to a Parsi mother (married to a non Parsi) is not a Parsi is nonsense. If the gene pool is be prevented from further dilution, as a result of mixed-marriages, BOTH parents should be Parsis. Until about 1903 or so that was the case. At that time it was decided by a judge that the child of a Parsi man with a non-Parsi spouse could be initiated into the religion while that of a Parsi woman with a non-Parsi spouse could not. That ruling made over a century ago, when there was very little knowledge of genetics is fundamentally flawed and needs to be changed to state that both parents must be Parsis to preserve the gene pool. It is because the Parsis DID NOT marry outside their community (for the most part) that even today over a thousand years after they landed in India from Persia that they have physical characteristics that set them apart. Had they not done so they would have been swallowed up into the vast Indian population. The above is written strictly from a biological point of view. After all religion is based n a set of beliefs that can be held by anyone, while genetics is based on biology and is characteristic of groups of animals, humans included!