If I were wanting to answer the question of whether Buddhism is a religion or not I would look not only at current practices in countries where Buddhism is dominant or important, but at the history of Buddhism over – what is it? – some two and a half millennia now. I would go back as far as I could, look at all the relevant texts, see how it has developed and changed over the centuries and in different places, look at the views of a wide range of authorities, and in short gather as much relevant material and opinion as I could. I would not just look at what “the folk” do today (assuming I knew who or what the “folk” were) and, certainly, I would pay very little attention to what happens to be printed on official forms for bureaucratic convenience.

I might well conclude that Buddhism as practised over the centuries has at times resembled a religion and at times not – and that even today it varies from one place to another. (Though much would depend, presumably, on how one defined a religion – and I have never seen any watertight definition.) 

Changing the perspective a little, if one were forming an opinion about the nature of Christianity and its beliefs, would you be happy if they relied on “folk” information – e.g. what’s on official forms – or would you hope that they might do a careful study of the kind I suggest above?

Re your second para, I really don’t see why regarding religion/spirituality as important questions should cause them to go “off the rails”. What would be the causal link there, do you think?

DA