Buddhism seems to be the best fit for human progress

Your argument is discard of baby and bathwater. Again, you condemn the philosophy for the thoughts and actions of the people allegedly espousing the philosophy. That's entirely a foul. Have you read the Holy Bible, cover to cover? Have you read the Quran, cover to cover? I have, to both; the former, on four languages; the latter, two. I'll wager you have not, and you are not alone. I have far fewer people in my camp than you in yours. I'll take mine any day, There are people who misinterpret both, and act accordingly. That is not the fault of the text, as it is not for any philosophy.

I'm familiar with the 28-couplet Rede of the Wiccæ, and find there wise counsel. Truth is where it is found, and existed all around us if we're willing to find it. It is not found by assuming it does not exist in any man or woman.

I've also read the Communist Manifesto stem to stern, and understand why that philosophy is not of useful purpose, for it does not know how to create personal wealth, but sure knows how to spend it for all the wrong reasons. Unless one knows how to make it from scratch, no ability of spending will teach how to make it in the first place. Same with religion. Until one knows how peace is created and maintained, war will never be defeated, even within one's self.

You mean pure and uncontaminated Buddhism, as found in Wikipedia?

What I mean is that Buddhim is very clear about their teachings. There is no space for uncertainty as there is in Christianity. So, it's very difficult that a son of a bitch can convince buddhists that they need to go to war to defend their "faith".

Besides, the key of its success is that Buddhism doens't have a God which people can fight for as it is in the Islam which exhort explicitly to use violence against the enemies.

I’m pretty sure Theravada, Mahayana, Vajrayana, Zen, and Nichiren Buddhists all think they are practicing “the original teachings of Buddha”, but hey, feel free to correct them, all half billion of them.

You could call your movement, Wikipedia Buddhism.

Japan has given up on religion and become atheistic.

See, they are smart.

I'm familiar with the 28-couplet Rede of the Wiccæ

Bide the Wiccan Laws we must In Perfect Love and Perfect Trust.

Live and let live. Fairly take and fairly give.

Cast the Circle thrice about to keep the evil spirits out.

To bind the spell every time let the spell be spake in rhyme.

Soft of eye and light of touch, Speak little, listen much.

Deosil go by the waxing moon, chanting out the Witches' Rune.

Widdershins go by the waning moon, chanting out the baneful rune.

When the Lady's moon is new, kiss the hand to her, times two.

When the moon rides at her peak, then your hearts desire seek.

Heed the North wind's mighty gale, lock the door and drop the sail.

When the wind comes from the South, love will kiss thee on the mouth.

When the wind blows from the West, departed souls will have no rest.

When the wind blows from the East, expect the new and set the feast.

Nine woods in the cauldron go, burn them fast and burn them slow.

Elder be the Lady's tree, burn it not or cursed you'll be.

When the Wheel begins to turn, let the Beltane fires burn.

When the Wheel has turned to Yule, light the log and the Horned One rules.

Heed ye flower, Bush and Tree, by the Lady, blessed be.

Where the rippling waters go, cast a stone and truth you'll know.

When ye have a true need, hearken not to others' greed.

With a fool no season spend, lest ye be counted as his friend.

Merry meet and merry part, bright the cheeks and warm the heart.

Mind the Threefold Law you should, three times bad and three times good.

When misfortune is enow, wear the blue star on thy brow.

True in love ever be, lest thy lover's false to thee.

Eight words the Wiccan Rede fulfill: An ye harm none, do what ye will.

Christianity has stopped being an issue for the West since the age of Enlightment

The UK was still 93% Christian in 1950, as were 91% of Americans.

https://countryeconomy.com/demography/religions/uk?year=1950

https://news.gallup.com/poll/358364/religious-americans.aspx

The idea that a Christian supermajority was only stopped from pushing bloody theocracy by some "enlightened" minority is absurd. Clearly a government that respected freedom of religion was allowed to proceed with the Christian supermajority's consent. Or in other words, the Christians of the 19th and early 20th centuries had arrived at these values on their own. Even if convinced by the arguments of Enlightenment-era deistic thinkers, this couldn't have happened unless said Christians believed such to be compatible with the teachings of their religion.

Buddhism, on the other hand, didn't change over time.

All religions change over time in practice, if not in doctrine too.

Buddhism wasn't originally divided into 3-4 major schools (Theravada, Mahayana, Vajrayana, arguably Ambedkarism) but now it is. These schools weren't themselves originally divided into subgroups (e.g. Pure Land, Chan/Zen, Nyingma, Kagyu, Gelug, Sakya, etc.) but now they are. Mahayana kept "discovering" new sutras until 500-600 years into the common era, or roughly a thousand years after the Buddha lived.

Buddhism wasn't originally intertwined with secular state power, but by the Middle Ages this was happening across East Asia, especially in Southeast Asia. Even today, the 969 Movement is a Buddhist nationalist movement in Myanmar, trying to preserve the country's "traditional Buddhist values" and standing in opposition to the country's Muslim minority, its members even participating in the Rohingya Genocide. The movement's leader is a Buddhist monk. In Sri Lanka, the country's Sinhalese Buddhist majority discriminates against its Tamil Hindu minority, and a few years ago suppressed an insurgency by the latter using draconian collective punishment tactics.

And if you dive a bit deeper you'll realize that more and more Westerners are participating in some movements that resemble Buddhism, like the new age movement.

Sure, Buddhism has a novelty to it for people who haven't been raised in the tradition. Not sure why I'd need to "dive a little deeper" when literally everyone knows about this but okay.

Even so, some 60-70 after the explosion of Buddhist movements in the West only about 1% of Americans (3.3 million people) identify as Buddhists, in a country with some 20-25 million Asian-Americans. This is far worse than the retention rate of Christianity among White-Americans.

https://www.pewresearch.org/religious-landscape-study/

The fact that some people used Buddhism to justify violence doesn't make it less useful.

You're obviously holding Christian and Buddhism to different standards. When Buddhists do violence or theocracy, you say it "isn't real Buddhism". But when Christians do the same, you take this as proof that Christianity is bad. I would appreciate a little consistency.

Yep, that's it, though not in couplet form, but all the words are there.

Buddhism succeeded where Jesus failed which was to make each follower accountable for their actions. Christians were told jesus died for their sins.

There are people who misinterpret both, and act accordingly. That is not the fault of the text, as it is not for any philosophy.

So, you're saying it's just a matter of interpretation and that the Quran actually preaches peace and love to everyone. Is that what you're saying?

Come on, man. I'm not going to waste my time in something that we all can find out using the most simple method we have which is the observation.

The idea that a Christian supermajority was only stopped from pushing bloody theocracy by some "enlightened" minority is absurd. 

it's not absurd at all considering that it was an age of power transfer, from religious to secular, a power that was hold by a "tiny majority". Does 'bourgeoisie' sound familiar to you?

Buddhism wasn't originally intertwined with secular state power, but by the Middle Ages this was happening across East Asia, especially in Southeast Asia. Even today, the 969 Movement is a Buddhist nationalist movement in Myanmar, trying to preserve the country's "traditional Buddhist values" and standing in opposition to the country's Muslim minority, its members even participating in the Rohingya Genocide. The movement's leader is a Buddhist monk. In Sri Lanka, the country's Sinhalese Buddhist majority discriminates against its Tamil Hindu minority, and a few years ago suppressed an insurgency by the latter using draconian collective punishment tactics.

You're definetly trying to pass a polical movement as religious. All what you're describing is part of the polical maneuvering of some power groups that used Buddhism to justify the violence over some groups, which I don't deny. What I'm refusing to accept, because it'd be intelectually dishonest from my side, is that Buddhims was not as violent and repressive as Christianity was, starting with the fact that Christianty institutionalized the repression and violence by means of a central authority which is the Vatican, there hasn't been such thing in Buddhism. The power that held the Vatican was such that they killed millions of people that refused to convert or accept their stupid beliefs. I think I don't need to describe the Inquisition, the Crusades,or the Witch Hunts.

And don't believe that the Church has stopped being a bad influence on the West. There are several Christian groups from many different denominations that are trying to influence on many areas of our society, like education and health, making us get backwards yet again.

Sure, Buddhism has a novelty to it for people who haven't been raised in the tradition. Not sure why I'd need to "dive a little deeper" when literally everyone knows about this but okay.

Even so, some 60-70 after the explosion of Buddhist movements in the West only about 1% of Americans (3.3 million people) identify as Buddhists, in a country with some 20-25 million Asian-Americans. This is far worse than the retention rate of Christianity among White-Americans.

I'm referring to spiritual movements that pick several aspects of Buddhism but are not Buddism per se, like the new Age. I don't know of other spiritual denominations, I guess they don't like to have labels, they just call themselves "spirituals".

https://www.teenvogue.com/story/spirituality-rises-young-people-religion

I’m pretty sure Theravada, Mahayana, Vajrayana, Zen, and Nichiren Buddhists all think they are practicing “the original teachings of Buddha”, but hey, feel free to correct them, all half billion of them.

They can create new versions of Buddhism, what you're never going to see is Buddhists trying to convert people or killing for being a "no-believer", except for some few cases that I'd consider political.

Good Buddhist, Bad Buddhist .

Yin and Yang.

The dual nature of reality.

I don't think Buddhism is 'necessarily a bad system, I don't know much about it.

Though I don't think Misterio has done a good job yet of setting it aside as so different from various other religions and philosophical systems.

I do recall reading of the parable of the poisoned arrow, which I found interesting, and persuasive of pragmatism to a degree.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Poisoned_Arrow

Historically, Judaism and Buddhism were geographically and culturally distant, with no significant direct contact in antiquity

. There is no evidence of the Buddha being aware of Judaism, nor of a major interreligious relationship in ancient times. 

The relationship between the two traditions has primarily developed in the modern era, particularly since the mid-20th century, as many Western Jews have been drawn to Buddhist philosophy and meditation practices. This has led to a modern phenomenon sometimes referred to informally as "Jewish Buddhists" or "JewBus". 

Though I don't think Misterio has done a good job yet of setting it aside as so different from various other religions and philosophical systems.

Well, in all honesty I didn't prepare an argumentation to make my point. That's why you feel like all the ideas are untided.

Though I've been checking a bit of it and to me the best argument for Buddhism over the other religions is the amount of detractors against it. Buddhism has barely criticism. In contrast, Christianity and Islam have had a lot of opposition and criticism mainly because of the amount of violence that they created.

I'm still glad to see Buddhism talked about,

I'm not familiar with it's history or ideas, so it's interesting for me.

Still, that something 'didn't happen, is not proof that it could not have happened.

If Buddhism developed in Europe and Christianity in India, maybe much of history is the same.

Still a lot of wars in Europe, still a lot of colonialism in the Americas and Africa.

Geography, technological advances, age of sail, guns.

Not that religion and various iterations of religion have 'no effect.

But I do not think religion is the 'only effecting agent.

Unlike European countries.

The statement that "India has never invaded any country" is a widely held belief but requires careful definition of "India"

. The modern state of India, established in 1947, has not initiated an offensive war with the goal of conquering another nation's core territory, but has engaged in military actions to resolve border disputes and unify the subcontinent.