Indonesia has been struggling for decades to address an intriguing debate over whether an individual's religion should appear in official documents such as identity cards.
Only last week the government appeared to move a step closer to resolving the issue, which is obviously particularly sensitive to conservatives, when the Home Ministry decided to allow subscribers of non denominational faiths to leave the religion section on their electronic ID cards blank.
Thousands, or perhaps even millions, of people of traditional beliefs have so far been forced to lie about their faiths, as they have had to choose among one of the government-sanctioned religions, which are Islam, Protestantism, Catholicism, Hinduism, Buddhism and Confucianism. They would otherwise face difficulties in finding jobs or are even denied access to public services.
Senior politician Permadi, who claims to be a follower of a traditional Javanese faith, is another glaring example of the discriminatory practice. He had the religion box on his ID card filled by officials as Islam, while his daughter's marriage was "unrecognized".
Simply put, discrimination is the price minorities have to pay for their adherence to their beliefs, despite the state's commitment to protection of the basic rights of all as enshrined in the Constitution and the numerous international anti-discrimination conventions Indonesia has ratified.
While the Home Ministry deserves recognition for its intentions to put an end to the "dark-ages" practice of discrimination based on religion, it remains to be seen whether the policy will be operable in the field. This situation on the ground becomes even more complex when considering that the regional autonomy regulatory backdrop often provides local leaders and elites with a pretext to ignore central government policies.
Seeing the latest developments as a glass half-empty, the government's initiative to exempt followers of non denominational faiths from declaring their beliefs on their e-ID cards is definitely far from enough. It only amounts to the state's half-hearted intention to protect freedom of religion rather than settling issues of religious discrimination once and for all.
Pluralism activists have long demanded that the government scrap a citizen's obligation to display his or her faith altogether. This motion makes sense, not only because religion is a person's private matter that others, including the state, cannot meddle with, but also because unnecessary external intervention may fuel social segregation.
It is a public secret that religious discrimination is practiced widely throughout the labor market in the form of recruitment of employees with certain religious affiliations, due in part to the citizens' obligation to declare their faith.
There were also reports that forcing mandatory religious identifications contributed to the tragic mass killings that broke out when sectarian conflict erupted in Ambon in 1999. This should remind lawmakers of the dangers of such policies.
It is regretful, however, that the fight against religious discrimination was upended by the Constitutional Court when it upheld the 2006 anti-blasphemy law, which says that religious identification is imperative.
Looking far ahead, the country's policymakers should follow in the footsteps of the Lebanese government, which decided in 2009 to allow its citizens to remove any reference to their religion from ID cards or Civil Registry Records.
Indonesia can only live up to its billing as the third-largest democracy in the world if it can prove that religion cannot spark social divide, or even worse, conflict and violence. Our true respect for religion is evident if sectarian differences no longer matter to us.