I agree.

@@ -12 +12 @@
-<gloss>Unification Church</gloss>
+<gloss>Unification Church (new religious movement)</gloss>

The Unification Church is not a religion, it's a religious group. Unlike Christianity or the Vatican, most people have never heard of this group, therefore it makes sense to explain briefly just what it is.

Why do we even need a description? Do other entries for religions include one? I think adding the second gloss was enough.

@@ -12 +12 @@
-<gloss>Unification Church (new religious movement)</gloss>
+<gloss>Unification Church</gloss>

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_religious_movement
There is no single, agreed-upon criterion for defining a "new religious movement".[3] There is debate as to how the term "new" should be interpreted in this context.[4] One perspective is that it should designate a religion that is more recent in its origins than large, well-established religions like Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism.[4] An alternate perspective is that "new" should mean that a religion is more recent in its formation.[4] Some scholars view the 1950s or the end of the Second World War in 1945 as the defining time,[5] while others look as far back as from the middle of the 19th century[6] or the founding of the Latter Day Saint movement in 1830[4][7] and Tenrikyo in 1838.[8]

@@ -12 +12 @@
-<gloss>Unification Church (religious movement, founded 1954)</gloss>
+<gloss>Unification Church (new religious movement)</gloss>

Can we call something 68 years old "new"?

@@ -12 +12 @@
-<gloss>Unification Church (new religious movement)</gloss>
+<gloss>Unification Church (religious movement, founded 1954)</gloss>