That's nearly perfectly analogous to saying "I don't see why people want to call it 'chemistry' instead of 'alchemy'".
Not at all.
I just don't see why Westerners want to rob a religion of its tradition, culture and flavour for some bland idea.
Buddhism always was psychology-based, as it was always about the mind, and how to tame and direct the mind.
You mean, Buddhism has always been focused on the removal suffering? Otherwise, I disagree.
As for the naturalism comment, it may or may not have been. It was technically part of one of the fourteen unanswerables (or part of more than one, possibly part of all of them).
Which also includes Buddha not answering to the question of whether the self is or is not different from the body, to the permanence of impermanence of the world, or the existence of the One-Who-Has-Gone-Thus after death or not.
I feel this ties more into my own opinion that Buddhism focused on the removal of suffering, as opposed to discussions on the world, and therefore so no need for the Western stripping down to the bare bones.
Did I say anything about annihilation? No? Then why are you asking?
Easy, you'll burst a blood vessel.
Simply, you said that rebirth is taken literally (implying it shouldn't be) - whereas Buddha said he did not teach annihilation of being. I asked how you view that passage.
If you want to ignore it, though, then that is fine.