If one traces back Christianity historically, it grows more like a sponge taking in concepts and practices from its cultural rich surroundings. Before becoming the official "religion" of the Roman Empire it was wildly heterodox. Early Christianity is a wild ride. Even after being domesticated, latinized, canonized, homogenised and ultimately politicized looking back on the time line it unfolds like a fractal of cultural manifolds (e.g. "negative theology" [0] or more recent "existentialism" [1]).
"Buddhism" was spread - locally more limited - similarly through conquest and enforcing social order but never gained the momentum of "Christianity" or "Islam" and thus in its smaller and more fractions contains more "diversity" and is harder to point to as a monolithic block.
The exercise of bringing something to the table by being even mildly anti-Buddhist, anti-Christian, anti-#insert_religion_here# strikes me as fruitless in these globalised times and kind of weirdly pre-anthropological echoing theological reasoning.
The observations obviously stem from personal experience with different facets of modern/westernized Buddhism and is more descriptive of the author's resistances than the subject which is put sneakingly forward.