[trasz]

Not really: “Religious conversion is the adoption of a set of beliefs identified with one particular religious denomination to the exclusion of others.” It would seem rather pointless to have a separate terms for “conversion” and “conversion from effectively atheism”.

And it’s definitely a forced conversion: the whole purpose is to explicitly ignore one’s will, and is used to “trap” children into religion, generally followed by indoctrination about alleged “obligations” and “duties”.

[tsol]

In the case all schools are conversion factories and all children are converted, religious or secular(as far as I know no children are born believing in rational empiricism). Words have set meanings for a reason.

Even so is it isn't forceful-- you'll find children in fact want to be like their parents, and even go out of their way to imitate their behavior and beliefs.

[trasz]

Religious conversion is by definition a conversion to a religion. In civilised countries schools don't spread religion. Teaching basic rationality and logic isn't conversion.

Catholic child conversion is forceful in that it ignores the will of the subject. You'll find that even though children tend to follow their parents, many/most of children of Catholic parents don't want to have anything to do with that religion once they grow up. You'll also find that the chance of someone becoming a Catholic is close to zero unless they have been indoctrinated from very early age. You'll find a lot of statistics showing both.

[tsol]

>Teaching basic rationality and logic isn't conversion.

Except you are defining what logic is, while many would disagree so it's still enforcing your own world view on others. The only difference is instead of enforcing a creator, it enforces lack of a creator.

>Catholic child conversion is forceful in that it ignores the will of the subject.

I was talking about religion, and now you're talking about the sect of one religion. Are jainists subject to this problem? Buddhists? Is shinto? Your making big sweeping statements and giving granular defenses.

>You'll find that even though children tend to follow their parents, many/most of children of Catholic parents don't want to have anything to do with that religion once they grow up. You'll also find that the chance of someone becoming a Catholic is close to zero unless they have been indoctrinated from very early age

[Citation needed]. Your adding a lot of qualifiers, sure there are statistics that reflect a fraction of what you're saying but you're creating a huge narrative around it that's unfounded.

>Religious conversion is by definition a conversion to a religion

Okay and conversion just means "a change in character, form or function". Sounds like exactly what school is designed to do. What difference religion makes is up for debate-- brainwashing political or social values is just as dangerous for example but you took no issue with that.