Honestly I might have been tempted to pick holes in the reasoning, but the judge went to the trouble of doing the reading and actually considering it seriously, including raising the point of how close it is to an actual religion, so I'd say he's done exactly as he should have in this case in quite a professional manner (rather than simply dismissing the arguments as nonsense)
That said, I do wonder if they're now going to start questioning (apparent) Christians on the contents of the bible to see if they're "real" Christians or not before allowing religious exemptions to them
Biting the hand that feeds IT
