Goodsoulette: How is that any defense (if it attempts to be) of anything in this thread?
Of course any religious texts are open to interpretation. That does not mean that any interpretation is acceptable. Animal Farm can be a children's story or a satirical allegory of Soviet totalitarianism. The latter is more relevant and intentional. The bible is full of... well, crap.
Of course people only translate the basic principle of an "eye for an eye" in to modern principles. The rest of the passage reads:
"When a slave-owner strikes the eye of a male or female slave, destroying it, the owner shall let the slave go, a free person, to compensate for the eye. If the owner knocks out a tooth of a male or female slave, the slave shall be let go, a free person, to compensate for the tooth."
I like how an eye follows the same value of a tooth, and indeed, the same value of a foot. Nice also, how slaves are omitted from the modern-day idea of "eye-for-an-eye", but not the principle. Could this be yet another case of archaic BS thought up by non-thinkers that is still ruling over some people's lives? Oh why, I think it could!