Obviously, Jesus is white

When you look at the many images of Jesus, he must be white because he is mostly depicted as a young lily-white young male. When you consider that he was from a Semitic origin, such images do not show what he looked like. The crucifix at the Cathedral in Mexico City provides as powerful a illustration of a suffering Christ as any other crucifix.

Within the Christian churches, there have been many instances where later generations bemoaned the puritanical notions of their predecessors. They cut of the penises of Roman and Greek statues, they destroyed statues and imageries in several iconoclasms all in the name of their personal God.

At this moment there is a discussion about the existence of images of Mohammed. There are Muslims who belief that their prophet should not be depicted. At that they are as devout as the many Christians who belief that Jesus and other religious figures should not be depicted. Both Jesus and Mohammed cleaned out their temple consequently this type of puritanism has a great provenance.

There is no such thing as the Wikipedia. There are Wikipedias in over 270 languages and their communities have representations of many people and cultures. These include even more incompatible beliefs. In this day and age, there is an iconoclasm by Muslims who belief that Mohammed should not be depicted and in time honoured fashion they will strike out where they feel to be insulted.

Such a belief is not tolerant, and as a consequence such people have a problem applying our NPOV to what is an article of faith to them. Coming to an consensus is problematic because there is so little appreciation for the others conflicting pillar of faith.

Articles of faith are problematic in any Wikipedia. Fundamentalism is one reason why I do not edit the English Wikipedia.
Thanks,
      GerardM