Those Dreaded "Religious Views"

At the end of the article discussing Dean Rudenstine's speech, another law school dean adds his own incredible take on those religious zealots out there:

Dean Lawrence Raful of Long Island's Touro Law Center, affiliated with an Orthodox Jewish undergraduate program, doubted that strong religious belief promotes valid debate.

"What fundamentalist people don't understand is that if they take a stance based on religion, they're promoting a religious view," said Mr. Raful. "God created you to have an open mind. God gave us free will to understand science and belief at the same time, and He gave us some idea of how to live with the Ten Commandments, and then I think He said something to us like, 'Good luck.'"

I'm not even sure where to begin with this passage.  I'm fairly certain that most "fundamentalist people" understand that their religion-based stances amount to "religious views."  So what?  Does Dean Raful assume that, once he's established their status as "religious views," they are disqualified from expression in the public / legal sphere?  (See, e.g., Perry, et al.)  And how exactly can he discount the public validity of the religious views espoused by those "fundamentalist people" by offering his own explicitly religious view?  (i.e., that God just told us "Good luck" and is not actively involved in history)

As for the broader point raised by both Dean Raful and Dean Rudenstine -- that faith threatens legal discourse -- Steve Smith's "Hollow Men" thesis speaks to this better than I could.  My own experience is that faith gives lawyers and law students a foundation for their belief in transcendent principles.  I'm not saying that faith is required to create such a foundation, but I have found the foundation sorely lacking as I explore topics like ethics in the classroom.  It seems a bit strange to penalize those who enter into legal discourse actually having an articulable reason for their belief in the principles on which the system depends.

Rob