Once again, the idea that Buddhism would somehow be less dogmatic than other religions is a Western projection onto Buddhism. As far as religions go, Buddhism is pretty dogmatic and prescribes a very specific worldview. The difference is that it actually gives you the tools to verify those things if you wish, at least if you feel up for it.
> inclined to lay down principles as undeniably true.
dogma:
> a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.
Buddhism:
> a widespread Asian religion or philosophy, founded by Siddartha Gautama in north-eastern India in the 5th century BC.
These are the definitions I'm using
Have you studied Buddhism?
Which texts have you read?
Which Buddhist concepts have you learnt about?
Many people who profess to know what Buddhism really is truthfully answer: no, none, none.
The best way is to just show someone a morally disagreeable teaching to progressives, like for example how the Buddha said that poor people are poor because in a previous life they stole, or that abortion will send you to hell, or that by letting women join the sangha the lifespan of the Dhamma is reduced from 1000 years to 500 years. Or just show them just how much rebirth and karma is in basically almost every sutta. That usually shocks them out of their absolute stupidity and ignorance.
https://www.reddit.com/r/GoldenSwastika/wiki/misconceptions
I will not stop until we've erased secular voices from Buddhist spaces
Maybe I'm missing some pressures that you're not expressing.
No idea, I don't know anything about Judaism.
> If people simply prefer that approach, but traditional Asian Buddhism is embraced in your spaces, isn't "erasing secular voices from Buddhist spaces" in general more oppressive, not less?
No, because the Asian spaces are also being influenced by the enroaching of Western secular ideas. For example, Zen in the US is highly secularised, even though it is a traditional form of Buddhism. Thich Nhat Hanh teaches secular ideas to westerners but in vietnamese he is totally traditional and spiritual.
Spaces where Asian or traditional Buddhists can practise are shrinking because of this. Many traditional sanghas and temples are shutting down, and many secular institutions are popping up. The secular ideas influence the Asian Americans, causing the decline and defacing of traditional Buddhism.
This is why we have so many threads a day on /r/Buddhism calling out secular Buddhists, and it's honestly probably the biggest "battle" in Buddhism online today.
For me personally: my Zen teacher was quite unhappy with me for holding traditional Buddhist ideas, to the point where it felt like he didn't want me to be his student at all.
The Buddha speaks with immense authority, being the first person to achieve enlightenment and provide instruction in such a codified and disciplined way, that is simultaneously accessible to householders and monks alike. Its deviation from Vedic thought was in how it penetrated through much of the sectarianism of Hinduism, in both caste and cult.
But regardless of how clear-minded the Buddha was, or how concise his teachings, due to the first-person nature of enlightenment it will always be necessary to maintain traditions that produce skilled practitioners that also achieve enlightenment, then pass those same skills generation after generation in a highly replicable way. As there are many experiences which can be confused with enlightenment, this need for strict transmission becomes more necessary.
Your mistake is assuming that "Jewish Buddhism" or whatever is Buddhism. It deviates sufficiently enough from Buddhism in thought and lineage that to conflate the two is simply confused.
As far as this goes, it's difficult to get inside another person's religious reasoning.
Compassion for it sure, but at the intellectual level tolerance for mistruths is a kind of relativism that I don't think the Buddha would abide.
It is not "oppressive" to state this.
"Why should you not do this? Such talk, monks, is not related to the goal, it is not fundamental to the holy life, does not conduce to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation, tranquillity, higher knowledge, enlightenment or to Nibbana. When you have discussions, monks, you should discuss Suffering, the Arising of Suffering, its Cessation, and the Path that leads to its Cessation. Why is that? Because such talk is related to the goal... it conduces to disenchantment... to Nibbana. This is the task you must accomplish."
-- Viggahika Sutta, SN 56.9
My feelings come from a place of hate and malice, but also compassion for the Asian Buddhists who tell me every single day how they feel their religion is being defaced.