A good way of distinguishing texts that have attained scripture status – the Bible for Christians, the Qur’an for Muslims, the Founding Fathers’ writings for Americans, Das Kapital for Marxists – from ordinary texts is how political hacks treat them. Ordinary texts, people, events, etc., are viewed positively or negatively based on the person’s bias. For instance, a conservative will automatically view The Feminine Mystique negatively.
In contrast, scripture is universally revered within its target group, so that the writer will instead project his own views onto it. Hence the constant tug of war over who represents the ideals of the Founding Fathers as presented in 1776 better. It’s as if writers can choose one of several sources to appeal to: the facts, what the Bible says, what the Founders said, what Lincoln believed in, what MLK marched for.
Abstract Nonsense 
Who knew there could be so much interpretation of “Love thy neighbor as thyself” and “love god.” When a document becomes the reason for faith, you can pretty much obliquely twist anything into it to fit your theology.
I don’t think this is too big of a problem, since (from the deconstructionist point-of-view):
* Every text contains the seeds of its own deconstruction.
(or, perhaps more enigmatically stated)
* There is nothing outside the text.
So a (deconstructionist-minded) liberal would tend to deconstruct (rather than view negatively or positively) even an Ann Coulter ( http://www.anncoulter.com/ ) , just like they do the Bible.