ttbn,

That’s not enough information to determine if someone is a “loser”.

<<Anyone who has to hark back to the Old Testament for anti-Christian arguments is a loser.>>

On the contrary, they may be aware that Jesus fully endorsed the Old Testament and are demonstrating their efficiency in going straight to the source. Or perhaps their Biblical knowledge is not as good as ours and they are unaware of all the nasty bits to choose from in the New Testament?

Either way, it hardly renders them a “loser”.

<<Only self-haters and renegades deny their heritage and what they really are.>>

The census question being discussed asks for one's religion, not one's heritage. Religion isn’t the only thing that makes up one’s heritage either. And, on the contrary, the fact that I personally am not a self-hater is one of the reasons why I don’t identify with a poisonous doctrine that tells me I am filthy and in need of superstition to fix that.

Well they say "Sex Sells"

The common, possibly accurate belief, is that Men of the Church are interested in kiddies. But belief needs to shift back to more positive sexual symbolism in Church History. For example:

- Jesus, a Middle Easterner, was unaccountably not of Middle Eastern Appearance but as it shows in Catholic Bibles, he was a red-blond-haired, blue-eyed, white, Nordic looking, 6 foot, stud-muffin.

- Mary was importantly a Virgin = untouched purity

- Billy Graham, when in Australia, was all about handsome male virility in a spiritual package https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Graham

- the well scrubbed girls of Hillsong exude coltish belief http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3472375/Inside-life-Hillsong-Church-leader-Joel-Houston-s-wife-Esther.html

So basically the Churches need to change their image from paedophilia to interest in sexy adults.

SEX SELLS the CHURCH

As for "proving genuine affiliation", I don't think the census has anything to do with proof. After all, the census doesn't ask us to prove our age or where we were born. Probably in the next census, there will be a question along the lines of, "Do you hold a belief which would generally be considered to be religious? - YES or NO. If YES, in which religion do you believe?"

Of the 6 members of my high school debating team, in the mid 1950s, 3 were the daughters of different denomination ministers, & a fourth was from a highly Christian family. At least 20% of our debate preparation time would be spent with this 4 trying to convert we other 2.

They never succeeded in this goal, but they did quite easily convince me that countries run as Christian nations, on modern Christian principles, were the best to live in, both the kindest & most just available. I still see this as true.

It is perhaps the reduction in those actually practising their Christianity that is leading to many of these nations becoming less kind, & definitely less just in recent times.

I have only been to a church for the three big events in life, births marriage & death, but the question is, am I Christian. Damned if I know really, but I just might decide I am , when I have to answer the question.

There's a lot of debate about what exactly "Christian principles" are. It depends where in the Christian bible you look, for a start. Also it's very easy to find principles that were later adopted by Christians which actually existed among people who had never heard of the Christian god and who lived long before Jesus was ever thought of.

What principles would they be, Hasbeen?

<<...they did quite easily convince me that countries run as Christian nations, on modern Christian principles, were the best to live in, both the kindest & most just available.>>

Christianity has been dragged kicking and screaming out of the Dark Ages by secularism, and any modern principles that is has, it has had to adopt grudgingly as a way of surviving. The Western world is the way it is despite Christianity, not because of it.

<<It is perhaps the reduction in those actually practising their Christianity that is leading to many of these nations becoming less kind, & definitely less just in recent times.>>

Another example of why correlation does not necessitate causation (assuming for a moment that your claim is even true and that “less kind” is meaningfully defined).

The US is always a good test case for spurious correlations like this because it is a single country fragmented by so many states that are so independent from each other. And when we look at the relation between religiosity and societal health across the different states, we actually see an inverse correlation.

http://www.skepticmoney.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/table-religion-vs.....png

<<I have only been to a church for the three big events in life, births marriage & death, but the question is, am I Christian. Damned if I know really, but I just might decide I am , when I have to answer the question.>>

And what exactly would that achieve?

If you really think society is getting so bad, and that it’s because Christianity is in terminal decline, wouldn’t you want to check ‘No religion’ to encourage people to go back the other way?