"::::There's a difference. In your example it's the religious beliefs described that may be objectionable, not the article content itself (provided it is accurate and written in an objective, encyclopedic manner, which one would expect to be the case for articles that make it on the MP). In the case of images like the one in question, it is the content itself that is objectionable.    
 :::::Some people find an article not biased in their direction to be objectionable. Just pointing that out. You will be surprised by what people find objectionable    
 :::::Okay.  So should we exclude photographs of unveiled women (or, to touch on recent news, women in general) from the main page?  If a certain image can reasonably be thought to be objectionable to some users, why are they forced to see it when accessing Wikipedia unless they use an image blocker or bypass the main page?  They didn't search for it.  How is that promoting user choice with regards to potentially objectionable content?  —  
 ::::::That's very subjective. The image is only objectionable because you find it objectional. -''''|  
 :::::::That's my point.  —  
 :::::::*Agree with David. If there's one thing I've learned, it's that absolutely anything and everything is considered objectionable by someone, somewhere. —    
 :::::Look, I understand that NOTCENSORED isn't the strongest of reasons to keep an image/article on the main page, but ""because I said so"" is an even weaker reason to keep an image/article off. And no, you aren't forced to look at it, just google what you're looking for instead.  These articles aren't there with the purpose of making you feel offended, and even if they were theres no point in getting worked up over it. in other words, WP:NOBODYCARES     
 :::::Pretty sure that some Christians would find the content'' of an article like Krishna offensive as it doesn't state he's a false god and worshipping him will doom you to hell. Thou shalt have no other gods before me and all that...    
 (reset) The IP is commenting on 'the absence of reaction' rather than 'the presence of an image.'    

 As a series of generalisations 

 Most entries on the MP will generate no or neutral comments. ('Too many on a particular topic in several days', 'Should be on/removed from ITN', 'Nice picture' etc)  

 A few topics are felt on various grounds to be unsuitable for the MP, and either are kept off it or generate much complaint and discussion when they do. 

 Some topics will generate more discussion than would be expected. Others will generate less discussion than might be expected. 

 Many more will fall into the category 'not really my taste, but it will be gone soon', and most into the 'WP has to cater for most-to-all viewpoints, interests and tastes' categories. 

 It is when discussions of this nature stop happening that WP will have serious problems.    (modifying slightly) 

 The IP's 'One word', and also a while back the picture of someone with smallpox (a disease which nobody will probably otherwise encounter) generated much discussion on the balance between 'Wikipedia being not censored' and 'what is considered not acceptable on the main page.' 

 A picture that is described on the MP as having been considered voyeuristic, and a photograph of a cancer (which disease people might encounter) just sit there with nobody feeling strongly enough about them to comment. 

 An observation on the MP talk page on this divergence of reaction leads to a discussion on WP not being censored - which does seem to be a slight non sequitur.  [[User:Jackiespeel|Jackiespe