Well, since Christ was born around 5-6 B.C., the B.C./A.D. numbers are meaningless. BCE/CE is more accurate - so I'll use it.
I refuse to use CE or BCE. It's usage is simply is another step toward political correctness which I refuse to bow before.
The Constitution uses "The year of our Lord". It is un-American to use anything else.
You don't know that Christ was born around 5-6 BC. For one, you use "around." That is definitely a hedge word. But I've seen estimates all over the park on when Christ was born.
It doesn't matter.
Since they're using 2006 CE, there's no way that anyone can say that one is more accurate than the other. If they'd wanted to create a stir, they'd have pegged it at an absolutely known date in the past.
Do I think that this came about because of an anti-Christian bias? I don't know. But, I could read the history of the development of the CE versus the AD, and I'm sure that I could find some evidence one way or the other.
For what it's worth, my son insists this year is "really" the year 2010, because Jesus was born in "4 BC". Or maybe it is 5-6 BC, as you said; one source says Jesus may have been born as early as "9 BC" making this year actually 2015.
Yes, "Common Era" smacks of political correctness, but I look at it as reducing the mess our calendars will become if we want to be ABSOLUTELY correct about the years since the birth of Christ. If we start fiddling with the years there will come no end of trouble. Using the term "Common Era" at least puts the beginning some place.
Me, I use "Anno Dominie" for the Christian world, and "Common Era" for the rest.