Has the constitution been changed so that the 3/5ths is no longer there? If not, how is that different than the bible not changing it?

@redbai I would be satisfied with an amendment. Something simple, like Article 1 of 21st Amendment to the Constitution, repealing Prohibition: "The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed."

One can't change the past or erase history, but how much better might the world be if somewhere in the Bible, even in that bizarre book called Revelations, the author banned the practice of enslaving others, along with condeming the vast number of moral outrages either supported or ordered throughout the pages of that wretched book?!

@p-nullifidian There's also that bit in the 13th Amendment which allows the enslavement of those who are being punished for a crime, which is no more than defining the conditions in which a slave can be created in America.

@redbai Good point, although if we go there and say that the State has no right to force anyone to work as a slave, even when imprisoned, then we must first address the elephant in the room: depriving a prisoner of their life!

@p-nullifidian @redbai ...Or doing away with imprisonment for the dangerous to society?!?!?!

@p-nullifidian Not sure how it's an elephant in the room. Not even sure how it relates to the subject unless you're assuming that imprisonment is taking someone's life.

@redbai What is it that you propose for doing with those who are clearly a danger to society?

@Rossy92 Imprisonment and treatment/education.

@redbai That's reasonable. I wasn't sure if you were equating imprisonment with slavery.

@Rossy92 And I was just trying to say that slavery during imprisonment, as imposed by the state, is not a greater moral issue than capital punishment.

@p-nullifidian Comparing slavery to death is like comparing cancer to death, neither is preferred so the comparison is false. A person can be imprisoned and not enslaved, an option missing from your choices.

@redbai Not my choices. The discussion has drifted. A concern was raised regarding the 'loop hole' in the Constitution for slavery while imprisoned. I inferred that executions might occupy a higher priority than forced labor in prisons. If we are now asked to look at incarceration in general, a new can of worms must be opened.

I as an atheist can have the same expectation because I don't believe in an "alleged all-powerful, all-knowing, all-benevolent, God" and so can assume that the document was created by men, just like the Constitution was. Thus since both were created by men, why can't they both be judged by the same moral standards?

He also openly claims the bible to be a flawed document, so what's the difference?

Claiming I am overgeneralizing is not the same as demonstrating it. There are people who make the same claims about the comments in the bible while pointing out all the "good" it has in it.

"First, how can one have the same expectation of moral perfection of humans vs. an alleged all-powerful, all-knowing, all-benevolent, God?"

At least two facets of this God are established from his so-called 'inspired' word: 1) that he lacks the "Four Omni's" (omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent & omnibenevolent) his supporters still attribute to him; and 2) that he is one of the most immoral creatures ever created by man.

@p-nullifidian I'm unclear about exactly what you're trying to say, but I think you are basically agreeing with me? Just as a side note though, for at least a year now I've wondered where those "omni's" originate. Are they explictly or implicitly in the Bible? And exactly where?

@p-nullifidian, @redbai Given the first two paragraphs of your response, where is Matt's inconsistency? And of course the Bible was written by man. Even believers would acknowledge that. But one of the main reasons I am an Atheist and disbelieve the Bible's supposed inspiration is BECAUSE of it's obviously flawed nature.

And I'm not interested in in writing a thesis paper arguing which of the two documents is more immoral. Are you arguing that they are equally immoral? And is your view as black & white that the partial taint of immorality merits blanket labeling of the document as immoral? Or do you recognize levels of degree? I'm simply asking for the sake of clarity. It's not something I wish to argue as it seems at matter of personal taste, though to view it in such a binary fashion would strike me as a bit extreme and unreasonable, personally.

@Rossy92 I recognize levels of degree, certainly. The Constitution, however, has been amended, and is open to such, unlike the Bible. Despite the Constitution's flaws, its trajectory over time has, on the whole, been one of broadening the rights of the people, as the 13th, 14th, 19th and 26th Amendments attest. The Constitution, as both document and process, is morally superior to the Bible, IMO.

@Rossy92 Who asked for a thesis? If you're asking if I'm arguing that the constitution and the bible are equally immoral, I can't say as I haven't considered it past the slavery issue. I do know on that issue alone, they both assume the immorality of slavery to be part of a social norm.

In response to whether or not a document is immoral just because some parts of it define immoral actions as acceptable, in the context of slavery, yes. I also do not recognize a spectrum defining slavery in which some manifestation of it becomes moral. The idea that you seem to be implying such, yeah, I would avoid attempting to defend that too.

@redbai My thesis remark was simply figurative speak about what would be the laborious task of demonstrating your what I considered to be an obvious over-generalization about the Constitution vs the Bible. If you wish to characterize it in that manner, fine. I'll leave it to others with more time and patience to battle you on that issue. But you still have not answered my first question, and the main thing which attracted me to this post: Matt's supposed hypocrisy? (You: "He also openly claims the bible to be a flawed document, so what's the difference?" )

@Rossy92 The hypocrisy is believing the Constitution is a document of social value and the bible is not given that they both have the same moral flaw wrt slavery.

@redbai Given that there is little to no mention of the Bible in the clip, I take it you have come to your assumption about Matt's view of the Bible elsewhere. However, from the nearly 10 years that I've been acquainted with Matt's commentary, I don't think he would assert that the Bible has had no social value. Anyway, I feel that @p-nullifidian has effectively laid out a preliminary explanation of why the Constitution is of greater value given that it is amendable. And to go further and demonstrate the greater quantity of flaws with the Bible as compared to the Constitution is too remedial a task for my tastes. I find your post to be a muddle of false equivalencies, over-generalization/overstatement, and unsupported assertion.

@Rossy92 Okay, so you're just pompous enough to critique my opinion but apparently not bright enough to actually articulate why you perspective has any merit. Understood.

I stand corrected on the fraction. Thanks for the correction, I have corrected the text.

The fact that it "can be" but "hasn't" been changed means that it still has that in it. For the record, scriptor HAS been changed. Look it up.

Check the 13th Amendment. There is a loophole for slavery, it facilitated Jim Crow laws and chain gangs in the south for generations..