Originally Posted by iacas
If jaywalking or spitting on the sidewalk was covered under the Rules of an honorable game (because it would affect his "score" in that game) then yes, he should.
In the example above, the player could have retained his honor by ignoring the fact he brushed a leaf because he didn't violate the intent of the rule. He gained no advantage, even though he technically violated the rule. The intent of the rule is what counts in my opinion.
In theory, the laws (rules) of this country are also supposed to be honorable, but we all know how true that is. People lose respect for the law because those who make the rules have very little, or any, honor. There are so many ridiculous laws that people are forced to decide which ones to follow and which ones to ignore. Consequently, honor takes a back seat to practicality. You can be quite an honorable person and still not honor every law.
Golf is one of the last bastions of a moral code which used to be quite common. In our society, honor is fine for the other guy, but winning is the most important thing. Sponsors don't endorse the most honorable players, only those who win. There is no tangible reward for being honorable. It therefore becomes a liability when the end goal is the lowest score.
The player in question obviously derives motivation from his faith. His strict moral code forbids him from violating even the most trivial infraction of a rule. Is this really practical, or even reasonable? What purpose does it serve other than to relieve a guilty conscience? How about the player who only finds honor in winning, and where losing is shameful? Should his code of ethics be any less valid?