It could be easily mistaken, but please don’t mistake calling out secular Buddhism vs animosity towards secular Buddhists.
One is a movement, the other are humans.
We can condemn a cult, but have compassion for the followers who are led astray.
We can condemn smoking, but have compassion to help the smokers to quit smoking. One of the requirement is to get the smokers to see that smoking is bad in the first place. So naturally, there could be some debate towards people who promote smoking as good.
Is it enough to be in robes for decades? I am often amazed at the motivation and drive of secular Buddhists to practise, and it’s very good. That’s an encouraging part of them.
As for rebirth, refer again to my comments on the top for why secular Buddhism is not a full school of Buddhism, and Why Secular Buddhism is Not True - Discussion - Discuss & Discover (suttacentral.net).
There are plenty of parallels in the other canons, so rebirth is very solidly baked into the suttas. It takes a lot of effort and crazy creative thinking to weave rebirth into the canon as a late teaching, which I don’t think it is possible to even academically attempt to produce that, and I don’t think any secular Buddhists goes into academic Buddhism to prove that, it’s basically not possible.
If dying (for non-enlightened people) is the end of suffering, there’s no need to practise at all. Same result for those who practise, devote their whole life to abstaining from sensual pleasures, vs those who indulge in debauchery, hedonistic lifestyle.