Are Children Capable of Understanding Faith?

There's a part of me that feels that children should not be taught the particulars of any given faith. (By "children" I mean age 3 to 12 or so.) I see in church every Sunday, during the "Children's Moment," a group of kids parroting back stuff about Jesus, but I doubt very much if they really understand what they're saying.

However, that's not to say we should therefore teach them all about the various religions in the world. If they can't truly comprehend the notion of a risen Christ, I think they're equally unable to comprehend the notion of revelation to a 8th-century arabic prophet. Or a philosophy of layered attainment of higher and higher personal realization.

Better, I would think, for parents to "teach" by way of their own personal behavior, the essential teachings that transcend most religions -- control of anger, gentleness, kindness, charity and goodwill. Then, when the kids are 12 or so, they can start to delve into the specifics of a given faith. My preference would be that they delve into Christianity. However, I guess I would prefer that parents who do not live their Christian faith not paint the faith by their personal example.

I realize what I am saying is probably anathema to many. I guess I've been thinking a lot about things lately, and I've been deeply struck by the disparity between who Christ was and what he taught and what today's "Christianity" is all about.

Note: and I'll be the first to confess that personally I am a miserable example of a "Christian." Honestly. This is one of the things that's been troubling me lately. Of course, it is equally possible that I am simply imposing upon myself a dastardly version of legalism. But I don't think so.

* * *
On my trip to Brazil I traveled with a co-worker of mine who confesses to being a sort of atheist. I listened to his argument and did not try to preach. What's occurred to me is this: at the heart of his complain about "organized religion" is the concept of it being a man-made thing designed by the few to control the many. Two things then came to mind:

1. It's hard for me to argue with that, given the history of "organized religion" down through the ages. The Roman Catholic church has a long and not attractive history of this. The Jewish faith is not far removed from that very same thing. The Muslim faith is utterly corrupt in that regard. Evangelical Christianity is as well, to the extent it has taken on the trappings of a political movement.
2. True Christianity -- that taught by Christ -- has no rituals or control trappings at all. It is simply a matter of having a changed heart (true repentance and a trusting faith in Jesus as savior) and an ongoing relationship with Christ. Even the barest of "sacraments" -- baptism and the Lord's supper -- are not "required" in any real sense to be a "Christian."

This thinking is not yet fully formed in my mind. I realize that given this implies that one person's "Christianity" might be utterly different -- and potentially contradictory -- to another's "Christianity." Those points I've not yet worked out. But the point is really this: if the major complaint against history's "organized religion" is their use as a controlling agent, then Christianity as taught by Christ himself is the only faith (that I'm aware of) that lacks that at its core.

Does any of that make any sense? Or am just babbling? :-)