The theory of indoctrination producing an individual's religious beliefs is possible, but not absolute. For example, I was raised Catholic. I attended parochial school. My parents were Baptist & Catholic. I'm a Lutheran. If the indoctrination theory was full-proof, I'd be a practicing Catholic. I'm not. Faith is a personal journey. Some take it. Some don't. Some stray from the church & never return. Others come to believe, after a specific experience or late in life.
For every example of a person beginning their beliefs young & maintaining them through adulthood, I would wager there is at least two who have not. A few more examples to consider ... Tom Cruise was raised Catholic. He is now a Scientologist ... Ted Turner was raised a Christian & is now Agnostic ... Ron Reagan, Jr., though raised Christian as a child, became an Atheist in his teens ... Katy Perry, raised an Evangelical as a child, now says she isn't a Christian.
In fact, recent studies show that most Americans change their faith often. Well, if they were truly "indoctrinated", this probably wouldn't happen. Hence, the myth. There are a lot of things we may believe in, as children. Anybody remember the Tooth Fairy? But we grow-up & form opinions on our own. Taking a child to church, or sending them to a parochial school, doesn't indoctrinate. It may leave an impression and it may not. So, what's the harm? We all grow-up, one day. We either continue a religious walk, or we don't. That's personal.
Think of it this way, when you teach your kids comprehension of language, you technically are indoctrinating them. Furthermore, if you teach them "free thought" you are indoctrinating them into atheism.
Discomforting, Your concerns are understandable, but your reasoning on this is off. Kids look up to their parents/guardians. This being said, if you firmly believe there is no god, your kid is going to be much more susceptible to thinking the same say. For example, have you ever noticed kids going around singing the sponge bob square pants song? This happens to be so because the kids who watch this, like this show and see it as acceptable. Now, I am not saying it isn't acceptable, but that this is a clear example of indoctrination. Either way, someone could be indoctrinated with atheism or religious beliefs, but it doesn't mean they are more certain to grow up believing what ever they were indoctrinated in. All of this said, it is clear what is informally the right choice on this poll.
Indoctrination: to teach (someone) to fully accept the ideas, opinions, and beliefs of a particular group and [TO NOT CONSIDER] other ideas, opinions, and beliefs. / So, what is this saying? This is saying if you teach your kids about a certain belief system of yours without mentioning other belief systems, you aren't indoctrinating your kids. What would be indoctrinating your kids would be teaching them your religious values and practices, AND teaching them all other religions and beliefs are ABSOLUTELY wrong.
"Think of it this way, when you teach your kids comprehension of language, you technically are indoctrinating them. Furthermore, if you teach them "free thought" you are indoctrinating them into atheism."
Adaptable ... I agree! I had not thought of it that way, but you are right. Pushing free thought upon a child is no different than teaching one a specific religion. You cannot say that one is indoctrination & the other isn't.
"Adaptable ... I agree! I had not thought of it that way, but you are right. Pushing free thought upon a child is no different than teaching one a specific religion. You cannot say that one is indoctrination & the other isn't."/
To add on to your point. I said this as well.. "Side note: My example about sponge bob square pants is a clear example of the "indoctrination" people on here are talking about." So, if we go look at the definition of indoctrination, you'll see the the word indoctrination hasn't even been used correctly in this entire dialogue if people want to get technical.