Richard Dawkins argues that just as a child can not have a political ideal, she can not have a religion either. He says, it is like calling children 'these are socialist children', 'those are republican children'. Therefore there can not be a Hindu child. I like the idea. It is my own to be precise when I had realised that I am a Hindu because I was born to Hindu parents, a brahmin, a veggie etc all because I was born to a particular couple. I would be dishonest to say I chose to be this after I grew up. No I did not chose, I merely did not chose anything else. That is all.
My vegetarianism in particular is mostly inherited. However, I consciously chose to continue probably to avoid a sense of uneasiness if not guilt. Now of course I defend it! I tried to think, but I can not figure out if it was uneasiness or aversion to cruelty that made me continue. That is why I say it was probably uneasiness since I am may not have been exposed to cruelty in the sense it is required to develop aversion to it.
Even though I like the Dawkins idea. I can not figure out the solution. If some one can help separate religion and culture we could have children with cultural identity but no religious identity. Only if you can separate them. This is even more complicated for Hindus. We can definitely make children plural but depriving them of some faith is not reasonably feasible even though interesting. Absolutely queerer than we can suppose!