Reactions to the Federal Court decision overturning proposition 8 in California got me to thinking how important documents can be read by groups with differing agendas to reach completely different conclusions. This includes the US Constitution, the Bible, the Quran, anything. Advocates can read the same words, ignore the words that don't fit their opinion and justify their position.
Another interesting aspect is interpretation of the "meaning of the writers" of the document. Situations vary over time and applying something written hundreds or thousands of years ago is an exercise in interpretation at best and spin at worst.