Many religions proclaim that they are peaceful and opposed to violence, but these same religions generally have traditions in which violence, war, and aggression not only exist and are not only permitted, but are in fact sanctified. To be "sanctified" means "to be made holy" — thus violence becomes a form of religious devotion like prayer or reading sacred scripture. So long as violence is treated in such a manner, it's unlikely that it will be eliminated.
This suggests that the problem for religions goes much deeper than a contradiction between theory (proclamations of peace) and practice (violent behavior), but is instead a conflict between two important and fundamental aspects of religious theory: one part that treats peace as holy and another that treats violence as holy. Although violence certainly exists outside religion, irreligious atheists are right to point out that violence like this is only going to exist in a religious context — only religions consistently differentiate between places, times, events, or objects that are "sacred" and those that are "mundane."
Unfortunately, insisting that violence is somehow a sanctified act of religious devotion also means that a person is trying to place that violence beyond human criticism. In the context of religion, calling something "holy" is to place it on a higher, almost transcendent plane. It is separated from the mundane world and placed beyond human judgment or standards. This means that criticism must either focus on the problem of describing violence as holy, or denying that this category has any validity and thus insisting that the violent acts in question be treated like any other mundane example of human violence.
In The First Crusade: A New History, Thomas Asbridge describes how the idea of sanctified, holy violence manifested among the Christian Crusaders:
In the minds of the crusaders, religious fervor, barbaric warfare and a self-serving desire for material gain were not mutually exclusive experiences, but could all exist, entwined, in the same time and place. ...In a moment that is perhaps the most vivid distillation of the crusading experience, they came, still covered in their enemies' blood, weighed down with booty, 'rejoicing and weeping from excessive gladness to worship at the Sepulchre of our Saviour Jesus'.
There was certainly nothing noble or praiseworthy about the Frankish sack of Jerusalem, but it demonstrates that many crusaders were driven on, not simply by bloodlust or greed, but also by an authentic and ecstatic sense of Christian devotion.
There should be an emphasis on the word "authentic" here. The Crusades were an authentic act of Christian devotion, not a violent aberration. Crusaders were engaged in expressions of religious belief, not politics. The Crusades didn't contradict Christianity; instead, they followed logically from centuries of Christian theology and writing on war. The Crusades were a form of "positive violence" consistent with Christian doctrine. The Crusades cannot be excised from Christianity, nor can Christianity be excised from the Crusades.
Bob Herbert wrote about the experiences of Aidan Delgado, an American soldier who was given conscientious objector status:
Mr. Delgado... recalled a disturbance that occurred while he was working in the Abu Ghraib motor pool. Detainees who had been demonstrating over a variety of grievances began throwing rocks at the guards. As the disturbance grew, the Army authorized lethal force. Four detainees were shot to death.
Mr. Delgado confronted a sergeant who, he said, had fired on the detainees. "I asked him," said Mr. Delgado, "if he was proud that he had shot unarmed men behind barbed wire for throwing stones. He didn't get mad at all. He was, like, 'Well, I saw them bloody my buddy's nose, so I knelt down. I said a prayer. I stood up, and I shot them down.' "
Prayerful killing. Religious warfare. Violence is readily sanctified by religion — there is nothing inherent in religion to prevent these things from occurring. At best, religious believers may be able to engage in a constant effort to promote peace over violence, but that can't positively prevent it from happening. It might cause sanctified violence to be a little less likely, but nothing more.
