Like principles, right vs wrong, personal responsibility, higher law.
Allahpundit put up an article regarding BYU (a Mormon University) and their basketball forward who got in trouble. And Allahpundit showed he just doesn’t understand.
The quibble is over how long the suspension should be. BYU’s sentence: He’s done for the rest of the season, an astoundingly serious punishment given that they’re a top 10 team and a legit shot to win the tournament.
Actually, Allahpundit’s emphasis is on the wrong clause. “Given that they’re a top 10 team” means absolutely nothing. But that’s where Allahpundit’s emphasis should be, because that’s the point, isn’t it? You cannot follow your code if following your code actually causes you some discomfort? If principles can be cast aside for glory and money, then those aren’t actually principles. They’re options.
This is a national-championship-caliber team likely throwing away its chance at glory to make a point about honor.
Here, too, Allahpundit shows he really does not understand. As one of the commenters, Ronnie, said, “that all depends on what your definition of glory is.” Aquaviva added “No, it’s about honor, not to make a point about honor.” When you misplace your goals of glory and you redefine downward what honor is all about, you come up with reasons to throw your principles away. And you expect everyone else to throw theirs away, too.
BYU is doing the right thing, even though doing the right thing will likely cost them scads of money. Davies is taking personal responsibility for his actions and not blaming BYU or anyone else. And that’s the way it should be.
And most of the comments have been on the side of BYU. I suspect Allahpundit’s going “oops, I shouldn’t have said that.”