UPDATE: For those coming here from Blackfive, I have a correction to his assertion, “Jack at Random Fate seems to believe that we’re not better than those that oppose us and wants Gitmo shut down.” After you read my original post below, please be sure to see my response to the incorrect statement that I place a moral equivalence between the US and the terrorists:

A correction to what Blackfive asserts I “seem to believe”

—

This has been a very difficult post to write.

It is not intended as a simple partisan screed but instead tries to describe something that strikes to the heart of my beliefs.

Those who will understand need no elaboration by the time they finish reading. Those who do not understand need far more explanation than I can give by mere text in less than a book-length dissertation on the concepts and emotions that are the foundation of what I am writing.

Let me start with the foundations before I get to the heart of the matter.

I have written recently on what it means to be a moderate, and how what I mean when I use the word “moderate” is not the same as “centrist”.

In my definition of “moderate” I did not outline what they might believe other than this:

A moderate can be of any political stripe or agglomeration of beliefs. The defining characteristic of a moderate is a willingness to acknowledge that beliefs other than those held by the moderate cannot and should not be dismissed out of hand.

I did not choose to define a centrist because of lack of time. I did admit the need for additional discussion, however.

I am both a centrist and a moderate in many matters, using the definition of a centrist as someone who does not adhere to the extreme views of either the left or right wings in many issues.

However, there are some concepts upon which I could reasonably be described as extreme.

The one that lies behind the origin of this post is the concept of honor.

I was raised in the South of the United States, specifically the region around Memphis, Tennessee. I visited the battlefield of Shiloh as a Boy Scout before I was a teenager, exposed both to the rugged landscape upon which that terrible battle was fought and initiated into the tragedies that accompany any war that prompts brother to fight against brother.

Even now, the concept of honor still exists in the South of the United States, perhaps more than in the rest of our great nation, at least in my experience.

However, it is not taught formally, or even informally.

I can never recall my father ever saying the word “honor” to me.

I can never recall my father ever saying to me that I had to uphold some kind of ideal that he held.

Yet, I saw him uphold what he held as honorable.

I saw him do things that were directed towards larger ideals than his immediate gratification, or to the immediate benefit to his wife and children.

I have seen my father’s pain, while not expressed in words but instead shown in other, more subtle ways, a pain of the soul caused by the betrayal of his younger brother to the honor of our family when that man disappeared, abandoning his wife and children for a secret life he had constructed.

From these lessons I have learned of a concept of honor that I cannot deny or reject, all the more so because it was taught by actions and not words.

So to me, what is honor?

It is difficult to describe in mere words, but I will try because it is truly important to get to the final point that I wish to show; the entire reason I am writing this.

Honor is the adherence to higher ideals than those of everyday life.

Honor is the adherence to higher ideals than is convenient for the moment.

Honor is the adherence to higher ideals than might be beneficial even in the long run.

Honor is the adherence to higher ideals…

If you haven’t gotten the message yet, honor is the adherence to ideals beyond the self, beyond immediate gratification, beyond retribution upon those who offend us, beyond the exigencies of the moment.

So, to those of you who claim that moderates or centrists have no deeply held beliefs or ideals and only sway with the prevailing breeze, I completely and utterly refute you, because I do indeed have ideals that go beyond what is popular and what is current, and yet I am still a moderate and in many ways a centrist.

As a consequence, I am about to call out someone whom I list as a brother even though he and I have never met, because I feel he has gone against one of the ideals I thought we had in common, the ideal of honor.

Again this raises the question, what is honor?

What are these so-called “higher ideals”?

I can only describe what they are to me, but mere words cannot convey the concepts nor the deep feelings I have about them.

Honor.

There are certain lines that are not to be crossed.

There are certain actions that are unacceptable.

There are certain attitudes that cannot be held.

What are these lines, what are these actions, what are these attitudes?

Here is what they are to me:

You should always act in a way that is honorable, regardless of how others behave or act.

You should always try to respect other people, because they are human, just as you are.

You should always try to understand others, because they are human, and just as alone in the world as you are.

You should always try to avoid passing judgment independent of a jury-based court system, because you are as fallible as anyone else.

You should always remember that you are human, and you have no more and no less insight into the mind of God than anyone else.

As a consequence, a post by the Average Tobacco-Chewing Joe at Cadillac Tight disturbed me, because I had always thought that he and I shared a similar concept of honor.

The post: one called “Ditto” where in the comments I asked:

I want to be entirely clear on this:

Are you saying you don’t care or not if we hold ourselves to higher standards than those (or lack thereof, rather) that we see in our enemies?

I want to be very clear if that is what you are saying, because upon first, second, and third reads it appears this is exactly what you are saying.

If so, expect a response with both barrels.

If not, I’ll listen to what you ARE saying.

The reply to my query:

Go ahead and blow a gasket, Jack.

If you can look at that little girl’s picture over at Dean’s World, and still worry about our standards in relation to theirs, when the question involved is mishandling a fucking BOOK, and you still want to blow a gasket, be my guest.

Especially in light of this report:

All the headlines about “Abuse of the Koran at Gitmo” are absolutely accurate. Brig. Gen. Jay Hood’s internal investigation has uncovered some shocking incidents. On at least six occasions, Korans were ripped up. They were urinated on three times, and attempts were made to flush them down the toilet at least three other times.

Why aren’t millions of Muslims rioting in response to these defilements? Because the perpetrators were prisoners, not guards. As John Hinderaker notes on weeklystandard.com, the most serious desecrations of the Koran at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility were committed by the Muslim inmates themselves.

So they rip up, piss on, and attempt to flush their own book, then they want to piss and moan when a couple of incidents involving guards who are supervising TERRORISTS occur?

And in the meantime, they’re blowing up children and flying planes into buildings.

No, I don’t care about Koran “desecration”. Not one damn bit.

From my reading (and Joe is free to correct me if my reading is wrong), because a few self-proclaimed Muslims have chosen to desecrate their own holy book, and because a few self-proclaimed Muslims have chosen to commit atrocities, we should feel free to act however we please towards that which is held sacred by millions of other Muslims who have not committed these acts?

This is coming from a man who appears to equate desecration of the American flag, which by NO MEANS WHATSOEVER is regarded as a religious symbol, to desecration of the Qur’an?

This is coming from a man who posted a link from Donald Sensing where it is explained how the Qur’an is the literal word of God to Muslims?

This is coming from a man who speaks out for the honor of our armed forces upon every occasion on which they are impinged?

I am sorry, Joe, but your statement of:

So they rip up, piss on, and attempt to flush their own book, then they want to piss and moan when a couple of incidents involving guards who are supervising TERRORISTS occur?

And in the meantime, they’re blowing up children and flying planes into buildings.

No, I don’t care about Koran “desecration”. Not one damn bit.

speaks of a moral relativism that I see decried repeatedly by those on the right-wing, and is completely opposite of my concept of honor.

It does not matter how others react to these actions.

We must behave honorably regardless of how those in our custody behave, including respecting the religion held in deep faith by millions who do NOT behave as those in custody do.

Otherwise, why should they not hate us, for if we are to take the acts of individuals as condemning the entire society, then our actions at Abu Ghirab are more than enough to condemn the entire West according to the eyes of Muslims…

According to those millions of devout, non-offending Muslims the Qur’an itself and any printed versions of it are the literal Word of God…

…and you say it is OK to piss on it because a few bad actors in our custody do so.

Is that the zero-sum game you want to play?

Is a “tit for tat” mentality truly your idea of behaving honorably?

I cannot believe that it is, Joe, and I can only hope that you were speaking out of anger, for if that truly your method of thinking, then we are not the brothers I thought we were.

I may strive to be a moderate, and I may endeavor to be a centrist, but in matters of honor, I readily admit to being an extremist.

We MUST behave honorably regardless of how dishonorably our foes may act.

In this case, I am an extremist, and if we diverge on this, I truly regret it, for this is a matter upon which I will not budge.

UPDATE: Joe has responded on his own blog, and I recommend you read his response in full.

My reply in the comments to his response:

So you say it is OK to desecrate the Qur’an because a few people who call themselves Muslim desecrate it?

That is the gist of your post here and the one I linked to.

Therefore, it is OK to say that *all Christians* are evil based upon the acts of a few who call themselves “Christian”.

Therefore, it is OK to say the *entire* US Army are torturers based upon the acts of a few who have been convicted in Courts Martial.

THIS is the stance you are defending.

No straw men here, none other than the ones YOU YOURSELF are presenting.

So, defend away the actions of the US Army and the Christians since you are so ready to condemn *ALL Muslims* and accept desecrations of what THEY hold holy based upon the acts of a few, but use the SAME standards as you do for the Muslims, otherwise, you can draw your own conclusions regarding YOUR honor and honesty…

Otherwise, your condemnations of desecrations of the American flag ring rather hollow…

I normally try my best to find a middle ground, but in this case, I cannot because it involves what I see to be the honor of my country.

The honor of my country does not allow for accounting of how badly our enemies behave, otherwise using any standard of equal behavior we would be beheading those in Guantanamo by now.

We must BE better than those who oppose us.

…here is the abridged version of the latest movie, and the ultimate commentary on the “prequel trilogy”…