Correct, they don't sound positive at all to me.
Placing inherent value in tradition impedes progress. All tradition should be examined critically. Traditions that continue to provide value should be kept, harmless traditions are unimportant, and harmful traditions should be stopped.
Valuing morality means something completely different to everyone, and as such is close to a meaningless statement. Morality is a web of biologically-borne and cultural-imparted values. By definition each person values their personal morality. That said, usually when people in the US publicly declare the importance of morality, it's code for Christian (usually Protestant) teachings, which are themselves a mixed bag of commonly-held values like community and giving and some heinous views on various marginalized groups, depending on who you ask.
As you may be able to guess, I do not value spirituality. I view any time spent seriously contemplating the supernatural past early developmental years as indicative of a loose grasp on reality.
Honor is something that people earn through their actions. If parents act honorably then they should be treated as such. If they fail to earn their child's respect then they are not entitled to it. The fact that they spawned a child is worthy of little to no honor. The manner in which they provide for and nurture the child may be deserving of honor, or it may not be. I do not view respect of one's parents as inherently good, and blind respect or honor of anyone or anything is certainly bad.
The common thread here is that these values all indicate to me an abdication of critical thought. Blind trust in tradition, an assumption of universal morality, belief in the supernatural, and unquestioning adherence to authority figures. Am I certain that these describe OP? No, but it's definitely what this collection of values sounds like to me in the context of his post.