This post was editied by uhmm... user who shall remain nameless for the sake of not gratuitously bringing up a user name in vain (in keeping with our esteemed traditions... peace be upon them?)
The "edit" turned it into a different question which on the one hand expanded on one aspect of the original question; on the other hand narrowed it in another aspect.
I am confident that majority of the answers that this newly-edited question would attract would not answer the original question (as it was asked). I am also confident that the question's author would not even recognize the newly-edited question as their own. Less than 10% of the text of the original question was left after the edit.
I rolled it back to a more consistent version, but the ever-so-helpful user-who-is-not-to-be-named rolled back the rollback.
There was a previous discussion (about other question) in which a moderator stated that editing question's tags cannot amount to putting words in users' mouths. But surely changing their questions to be something entirely different does just that, does it not?
Do you not have an ability to stop a user who likes to inject his view of what others should or should ask into other people's questions?
I get that because everyone is short on time, they don't think too much about any old rant that they may edit on some website. But if one were to give a moment's thought to the question that this edit modified, one would see that there is a number of exclamations in the OP which are posed as rhetorical questions.
The last sentence, which contrasts Indonesia's IDs to other nations' IDs, is clearly one of those exclamations. It is not an invitation to actually give foreign examples of how useful religious IDs may become.
The gist of the question is to inquire how these religion labels, in official papers, are used in ways other than the ways stipulated by the power holders of the country. They sound like the yellow stars worn by Jews in the Nazi Germany, although obviously less pronounced. The lashing-out tone of the question is a not-unjustified exasperation. It's a rant, but of the best kind -- "Merchant of Venice"-style-rant.
The edit neutered the rant and made the question about other nations' practices, of exposing people's private religious affiliations to the public, as a morally-neutral occurance. But OP was really a cry for someone, who knows better, to expose cases of abuse of this system in Indonesia. It was a question about what were the differences between the real effects and the purported effects of having religions listed in the government-issued IDs in Indonesia. Which made it about the influence of clerics on the government of Indonesia and the effects of such influence. This is not off-topic for a site discussing governments and their underlying structures.