Yes,
I remember a brainwashing attempt in my first university, where we were instructed to read Galileo’s “Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina.” We were told this meant that he was an early proponent of the separation of Church and State/Science/etc. and that he was anti-religious altogether.
But a careful reading of the actual material, rather than the self serving modern or postmodern drivel that was to do our thinking for us, would cause one to draw no such conclusion.
His saying that the purpose of the bible was (something to the effect)to show us how to go to heaven, not how heaven goes, did not deny scripture as some would spin it.
This is epidemic in academia - Locke was misquoted, with ellipses often used to turn his ideas into their opposites, and Newton’s assertion that the Church Father’s non-use of a particular Trinitarian passage of scripture was probable evidence that it did not read so in their time is used to say that he was non-Trinitarian, rather than an early textual critic. [Perhaps he was non-Trinitarian, however, this passage alone can not be used to support this theory :) ]
Modern man wants to justify itself by pointing to people who did not and could not share the same premises and say that they are drawn from same well. Then it wants to pretend that empiricism and “scientific” thought led to what it now calls the failure of the enlightenment experiment (in bloodshed) but will somehow lead to a different end, because we know better now. Posh.
Yes, he credits "an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree" with the epigram: "That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the the heavens go."
But this is a very clear expression of the separation of scientific and religious matters which you attribute to brainwashing.