I'd like to note that this particular OP has a history of questions about controversial topics and either has an extremely erratic workplace or is making it all up. If it wasn't such an old account I'd have thought her a troll by now. If we consider the incredibly entitled attitude, the extraordinarily offended tone she brings to her posts and the story-like way in which she reproduces entire conversations (very evident here), I grow more and more convinced that these questions are made up or that she's blowing things way out of proportion.
That said, SE's model is not about judging users but their posts. The problems with this latest post are many:
- it's asking for generic advice and OP doesn't specify what she wants to accomplish: a moratorium on freedom of expression? shutting down inappropriate jokes? outlawing workplace chatter?
- very poor choice of tone and language
- dragging religion into the question
- bordering on asking for legal advice with the mention of a hostile work environment and child protective services
- potentially a duplicate of any number of older questions like How to deal with insensitive humor in the office? and it's linked questions
By now this question is too controversial and fragmented to be of use as a generic "How do I deal with offensive remarks?" question. All 5 of the currently posted answers are basically attacks on the OP and most should probably have been comments. Given the OP's past and present behaviour and the remarks AndreiROM raised I agree with his conclusion that this question is likely impossible to salvage.
For your broader question:
Is it okay to strip out all of the objectionable content to try and pre-empt a hate close? It seems that most of the answers would be invalidated.
Fluff can always be cut, but it's tricky when an objectionable attitude or opinion lies at the root of a question. Stripping a question completely to boil it down to a general question is almost always going to lead to edit wars. Those edits always change the author's intent which makes them automatic candidates for a roll-back leading to a whole lot of drama. Once a question is submitted the author opens it up for edits. Strictly speaking our Q&A format favours the "death of the author" but in practice this site in particular prefers to make sure that the question remains useful to the OP.
SOP in this cases like this should be to downvote if the question isn't useful, close vote if it matches the criteria for a close, attempt to improve the question alongside the OP and finally decide to reopen or leave it closed. If you think of a useful generic question, post it yourself.
For what it's worth, I rarely see "hate close votes" on this site. Keep in mind that questions that hit the 5 close votes aren't immediately closed but put on hold and this should not be considered a punishment but a signal that the question needs to be improved. Once it's improved and a scope and core question is established it can be reopened so that useful answers can be submitted. If anything, our community is too reluctant to close vote at times when both the OP and people looking to answer would be better served by first defining a clear scope for the question.