Whether you or she have children I do not know.

The proposition that  “religions should be required to defend any of their ideas that have the potential to impact people negatively and, if those ideas prove unsubstantiated and harmful, the religion should be limited” is sufficiently authoritarian as to preclude discussion.

To accomplish this the State would have to identify and somehow analyze religions - China.

The State would have to construct some mechanism for weighing religions and considering what "ideas ... have the potential to impact people negatively" - China.

The State would have to have some policing power to enforce its conclusions - China.

In short, implementation would inherently require an authoritarian State.

The fact that either this slipped past you or that it does not bother you seems to be support the conclusion that I could use my time more productively than continuing an exchange with you on this topic.