I don't have a problem, personally, with anyone putting rebirth aside if it's presenting an obstacle for their practice. As essential as Right View may be, the teachings may not take into account the possibility of secularized ethical systems (humanism, environmentalism, unitarianism, etc) which have a similar function.
What I do think is important is to understand how rebirth works within the Buddha's teaching, why is is important and could even be considered central.
If we understand that, each of us is free to decide what we want to do with the information. It's bothersome, though, when people intentionally obscure the issue because it doesn't fit their (Westernized, secular) conception of how Buddhism should be.
It's not that I don't sympathize, coming from a fairly Westernized and secular background myself. It's just that I feel it's a path to misery. Too much cognitive dissonance involved, too much selective reading, too many "clever" interpretations. Not to mention having to minimize or dismiss the actual living tradition of Buddhism in many countries, where ordinary practice is focused on merit and gaining a favorable rebirth.
Many years ago I had a good friend who liked to meditate and was interested in the dhamma. And then he went to Asia and became very disappointed, saying "oh, it's just another religion". This is what happens sooner or later if the religious aspect is not presented up front.
It seems fairly clear that the dhamma rests on kammic rebirth as a given. Now maybe it's possible that the foundation can be kicked away at some point. And whether the "given" is a true assumption or not, it's produced a set of practices and beliefs which we consider valid to some degree. Otherwise we wouldn't be here.