This debate, as so often happens, seems to have got polarised. Surely all reasonable people accept that we are all acculturated, that is we grow up with all sorts of ideological influences around us. Despite all the opinions expressed on sites like this, I would argue that very very little 'free' thought takes place (some of course argue that free thought is impossible). The point is that given the milieu children are born into, they should be free to make sense of it all for themselves, and not be systematically indoctrinated into any religion. Mitchell, above, is an agnostic/atheist yet he says he encourages his children to challenge his views and think things through for themselves. Surely that is the best kind of formative influence, at school and at home?

Squeers, Mitchell (and anyone else):

I have read your posts with interest. Near the start of the thread I addressed a post to the author of the article, but since he doesn’t seem to be entering the discussion I invite you to consider it in the light of the views you have expressed. The question is about indoctrination. Where does it start and education cease? The case I outlined may prompt us to find some new helpful perspectives on the topic.

"The Youth of today is ever the people of tomorrow. For this reason we have set before ourselves the task of inoculating our youth with the spirit of this community of the people at a very early age, at an age when human beings are still unperverted and therefore unspoiled. This Reich stands, and it is building itself up for the future, upon its youth. And this new Reich will give its youth to no one, but will itself take youth and give to youth its own education and its own upbringing"
Adolf Hitler 1937.

Crabsy,
I don't think there's anything wrong with the kind of influence you exert with the recorder as long as it's not dogmatic. My 13 year old girl plays the recorder beautifully (and the clarinet and oboe), but also listens to all the noisy (for me rubbish) music her generation listens to. She also reads avariciously but mostly, hitherto, authors like Stephen King (I hardly censor her reading at all). I've been trying to urge her for ages to read what I think are great texts (not just because they're canonical) but have met a lot of resistance; her own healthy assertion of independence. She's now reading Ian McEwan's "Atonement", on my recommendation (a compromise), but I've had to exert this influence with 'kid' gloves.
I am delighted with this independence of mind she's developing, and hope it will lead to a fulfilling life during which no one will be permitted to impose upon her, not even me.
So to want to share with your child what you find inspiring is fine with me, but they have to want to take it up of their own free will. Even religious influence is fine if it's imparted in the same spirit--though it constitutes a whole world view, as mysterious as aesthetics, and one would wish for lots of comparative material as context.
I'm far from the perfect parent, but I think I've got this matter of parental influence right. Religious texts are among my recommended reading list for my kids btw, but they can spend their lives watching Homer Simpson if they prefer--healthy satire!

My analogy was intended to illustrate three different classes of decision that parents might make, here represented by ethnicity, nationality and religion. First, children’s ethnicity is determined by their parents’ genes. End of question. Second, if parents have an opportunity to determine their children’s nationality, they should. Everyone needs a nationality and children are unlikely to be able to appraise any options available to them. Here, parents have a responsibility, not just a right. Third, children do not need a religion. This strikes out any argument that parents have a responsibility to impose one. Do they have a right to require their children to accept what they believe? Possibly. But they should always test this right, issue by issue, against sensible criteria. This is where differences of opinion arise. Here are two seemingly sensible criteria on which most religious beliefs would founder.
• The belief to be imposed should be verifiable. Nobody would countenance forcing children to believe that the world was created by a giant toad or that avoiding treading on footpath cracks will bring good luck, yet there is just as much irrefutable, replicable, verifiable evidence for these beliefs as for many of the beliefs that religions espouse.
• The belief to be imposed should have no capacity to harm the child. There is well founded opinion that encouraging children to believe in a god who spies on their every waking thought and action so that he will know which children to select to suffer the unspeakable agony of burning forever in hellish flames does them considerable harm.
Here’s the key difference. Parents have a responsibility to make sure their children know that there are people in the world who place great faith in their religious beliefs. They have no right whatsoever to pressure their own children, or anyone else’s children for that matter, to join them.
In summary: There are areas in which parents have a responsibility to make decisions for their children. There are areas in which they have a right, but not a responsibility. And there are areas in which they have neither.

Sorry Crabsy. Spent all day yesterday playing the recorder and/or encouraging others to play it and all morning preparing music for next week and lessons for my other U3A classes. If I’d suspected you were awaiting a response …
No, you are not indoctrinating children when you teach them about things or encourage them to practise provided that you do not place children under duress to believe things that are not demonstrably true. It’s true that practising something will make you a better practitioner so it’s OK to tell them they won’t realise their potential in this life if (like me) they don’t practise enough. And I’ve a lot less potential-achieving time left than most! It would be indoctrination if you forced them to believe that the price of their inattention to practice or preference for rock music in this life would be suffering in the next; and that’s not just because it would be a cruel thing to do —it’s because you can’t demonstrate to them, or yourself, that this is true. In fact, you indoctrinate whenever you force children believe anything that cannot be shown to be at least strongly implied by all the observable evidence.
Two hints that might help. There are some great arrangements of contemporary popular music for recorders, even including rock, and a great source of contemporary arrangement at Mayhill Edition. And, when I was a child, my father built our first ever brick, pull-the-chain dunny in the backyard. Its acoustic was amazing — made a descant sound as big as a saxophone. I practised there for hours to my family’s and my complete satisfaction. There was the occasional interruption! Moral? Parents do have a responsibility to try to tolerate children’s excruciating learning efforts; but the children also have a responsibility to minimise the pain as much as they can.