That is overstating the case. I would not give Protestantism full credit for open-mindedness and tolerance. Certainly, the philosophers of the Enlightenment had some influence, as well. With certain exceptions (the Quakers, the Baptists), most of the Protestant churches of the 16th-18th centuries were as intolerant and close-minded as the religions they sought to reform or withdraw from. We can use the Puritans, both in the UK and in the colonies, as examples of the latter kind of behavior.

Open-mindedness and tolerance are not traits held by all believers of whatever religion we might study. Sectarianism is a major problem still, even in the United States. While our political philosophy, laws and educational systems may encourage tolerance, there are many whose hearts are closed to the nobler aspects of their religious belief. The mistrust of “the Other” is still with us. Substitute the words “the Other” with “immigrants,” “Mexicans,” “Muslims,” “Obama,” “gays,” or “atheists” and you have most of the talking points of the right-wing Christians at your fingertips.

Sagan and I share his trepidation about religion — like The Shadow — “clouding men’s minds.” Certainly, we can argue that belief in a single Creator who put order in the universe indirectly led Europeans to become scientists and philosophers, but there were scientists and philosophers among the pagan Greeks, Romans, Egyptians and Sumerians as well. Dogmatic and sectarian thought, on the other hand, shuts believers’ minds to the worth and contributions of those outside their particular religion. Contradictions to their rather rigid world-views threatens them and makes them fearful them. What should be an intellectual discussion instead becomes an emotional one, especially if the religious feel they must “defend the Faith” at any cost. Creationism is one such example. Despite abundant evidence supporting an earth that is billions of years old, creationists hold tightly to their belief, and many are notably intolerant and close-minded, accusing scientists (and Darwin) of being atheists intent on bringing down the Christian church.

I do not here evangelical Christians (the dreaded so-called “religious right”) calling for silencing their opponents for “hate speech”, and I haven’t heard any talk of criminalizing people for being “enemies of the Faith”. Instead, I have heard of previously lawful (even if controversial) speech being silenced because of it’s religious content, and I have heard spokesmen for the scientific community label others as “enemies of Science”.

You are not listening very carefully, then. There is a subset of evangelicals, the Dominionists, who are bent on making the United States a Christian nation, following Scriptural laws. Some have suggesting amending the Constitution to make Christianity the official religion of the USA. Sarah Palin, who may or may not have some connections to these people, spent most of her campaigning last fall accusing large parts of the USA of being “un-American.” We have Congressmen, like Minnesota’s Michelle Bachmann, suggesting members of Congress of being un-American, too. Many in the religious right mistrust Obama, question his nationality, his Christian beliefs, his motives. There are prominent televangelists, and nearly every right-wing talking head, who routinely blame all the ills of the world on whatever “Other” happens to be the focus of the day. Much of this rhetorical blather borders on hate speech, and some crosses the line.

Anyone who tries to force religious thinking into science classrooms could be called an enemy of science. There are plenty of people across the nation who are teaching creationism — or who want to teach creationism — as if it is a legitimate scientific explanation. They confound the ill-educated with their hand-waving arguments and lax definitions of “science,” making it difficult if not impossible for people to understand real science.

Sure, there are atheists who are also dogmatic and intolerant, and scientists as well. These may be human traits we cannot entirely escape. But the atheists and scientists don’t justify their behavior by appealing to a Higher Being who supposedly tells them what to do and how to think. In that, they are hopelessly outnumbered.

For this reason, although I thoroughly respect Dr. Sagan’s right to believe as he does, and in fact delight in reading his works and listening to him, I am concerned about what may constitute a subtle hostility on his part toward the “religion” of others. I would be quick to point out that the open-mindedness and tolerance which he extols, and which have been so instrumental to his success and that of other like-minded people is, itself, a direct product of western protestant Christian thinking. There have, of course, been narrow-minded and hostile religious believers. But is there any doubt that for every Torquemada or medieval pope or Bin Laden that agnostics can point to, there is a Stalin or Mao or Hitler to which religious believers can just as rightly point? In the meantime, the whole idea that we “ought” to be tolerant of others (whether it suits our own purposes or not) is, itself, a “religious” statement. Physics did not deny Hitler his means, any more than the words of Jesus Christ (“Love thy neighbor as thyself.”) were able to stop the medieval Church from burning heretics at the stake.

For this reason, I think that it is important for today’s advocates of secular reasoning to pause and take stock of some of the things that are being said by them or in their name. I do not here evangelical Christians (the dreaded so-called “religious right”) calling for silencing their opponents for “hate speech”, and I haven’t heard any talk of criminalizing people for being “enemies of the Faith”. Instead, I have heard of previously lawful (even if controversial) speech being silenced because of it’s religious content, and I have heard spokesmen for the scientific community label others as “enemies of Science”. In this vein, it might be good for modern Secularists to heed an ancient admonition from the New Testament, directed originally at believers who felt themselves to be above reproach… “Let him who thinks he stands take heed, lest he fall.” Just as our charity is judged by how freely we give of our own wealth, rather than that of the taxpayers, so also is our tolerance judged by how we treat those with whom we actually disagree.

Google it.

That said, I’ve always been partial to Sagan because of my affection for the movie Contact.