A case of "judicial activism"?

So, George, consider this "hypothetical" situation:

A married couple with a 9-year-old child are getting a divorce. Both parents practice the same religion, so the future religious upbringing of their child is not something the parents disagree about, and therefore religion is not a relevant issue in the divorce case. But the judge tells the divorcing couple that they cannot expose their child to the beliefs and practices of this religion because, of course, the judge believes that the religion they practice is not mainstream enough.

Oh, and did I mention that this "hypothetical" situation is set in the USA? You know, the country with that clause in their Constitution about government not prohibiting the free exercise of religion?

So, whaddya think, George? Would you consider the judge in this case to be one who strictly adheres to the Constitution, or would you consider him to be one of those pesky activist judges you've been telling us we should be worried about?

(H.T. to Jesse at Pandagon.)