We often think we are immune to a cognitive bias if we are aware that it exists, and understand why it happens. But in fact, general awareness is usually quite insufficient to eradicate a bias; you have to put effort into particular cases to make headway. (For example, each new generation greatly underestimates how far we are from AGI, even when they know the prior record of bias.)
People are attached to sacred things. The definition I prefer for attachment is: you are attached to something if you aren't making plans to deal with it going away. With this definition, not all attachments are sacred, since I don't have plans to deal with various forms of injury, but intactness of my body isn't sacred. But, as far as I can tell, people only regard a thing as sacred if they are attached to it.
Yes, war is sacred in many ways. So poll respondents seem adamant to declare that other things they care about are MORE sacred. Not sure I believe them though.
It seems fairly obvious to me that military service shares most of the characteristics of "sacredness": set apart from ordinary life, surrounded with ceremonies, separated from economic concerns, almost universal regard as an ideal.
I recall that around 1860, King William I of Prussia (the future Kaiser William I) was locked in a bitter struggle with the Prussian parliament over military funding. The King was greatly offended that greasy politicians dared to wield authority over the army's "sacred regiments" (his phrase).
A bit later, Abraham Lincoln famously described the battlefield of Gettysburg as "consecrated... far beyond our poor power to add or subtract".
Link to perceived sacredness summary is gated, good post thanks.