The United States of America government laws could be considered sacred text. And is actually treated as sacred text that must be observed, obeyed and enforced unquestionably to rape this land from the original indigenous inhabitants calling them such as Mexicans, Indian and native American.

From your link, the first bullet point:

Believers wish to see their sacred texts as authorities capable of sustaining their trust, but this is an epistemological impossibility unless the texts are as fully discursive as codes of law.

If you notice the old testiment is purported to be the laws (of Moses) for the nation of Israel prior to 2000 years ago.

So, in regards to "biblical " sacred text, ...unless the texts are as fully discursive as codes of law. It was the codes of law for the nation of Israel prior to 2000 years ago.

Big problems with sacred texts whether it is Quran, the Bible or Geeta or Upnishads. They were all written to do marketing with miracle stories and put a fear into people so they could control people. They all have the same formula.

Part of the problem with religious texts is expressed in the. "True, Good, Beautiful ? Part of your heading. The point being that for a text to attract followers, especially when those followers have come through education systems which do not teach the strongest critical thinking, the texts need only be the last, 'beautiful'. Which is why the arts of all sorts are so dangerous.

That is of course basically the Dawkins 'memes' theory, of human culture, that ideas are not passed down and spread because they are correct or truthful, (though they may be that), but mainly just because they have the qualities which make them spreadable. Often by appealing to our prejudices, and fears, often because it is those that we are most sensitive and defensive about, or by appealing to our sense of beauty.

I am sorry to say, that I can not go wholeheartedly with Keats, that "truth is beauty". Truth is only beauty to the already beautiful and perfect mind, and who has one of those ?

It is helpful in such cases, to start perhaps, by defining religion, and there are, as you all well know, perhaps as many definitions of religion as there are religious people and sceptics put together. Especially when some people claim that, a religion has to have a deity and some claim not, while some say that even backing a football club can be religious.

Here's a definition though, which always seemed to work for me, is very all embracing, and perhaps makes an important point about the main problem with religion. It is. “ Religion is the awarding of authority, to things which can not justify the authority by reason or evidence.” Whether those things are, sky fairies, old books, grand metaphores, political movements or people in office, etc. even sometimes science. ( I once saw a TV presenter ask a scientist to pronounce on a historical question, even though the scientist, said he had no knowledge of history, for example. )

In other words by this definition, religion is in many ways just the practical expression of the, proof from authority, fallacy.