I’ve always felt that “Ideology is Stupid” is a good approach. I came across what I think is an incisive critique of the Secular Buddhism movement, as promulgated by Stephen Batchelor and others. Mind you, I’ve enjoyed several of Batchelor’s books very much. I’ve reread at least two of them with great enjoyment.
The critique goes something along the lines of — examine the faith that underlies even this secular Buddhism. Any faith tends toward viewing something as sacred, and as such, more valuable than other approaches. Better to be outright religious than hold some kind of fake non-religious stance. Not sure I agree wholeheartedly with that, but find this piece to be stimulating.
Worth a look. On the Faith of Secular Buddhists at Speculative Non-Buddhism.
It’s interesting to me because I think you can get caught between a McMindful approach (see previous post), which waters down and limits meditative practice to stress relief on the one hand, and a worshipping, religious, Buddha as great father (or belief in reincarnation, etc.) on the other hand.