Because the Bible is a religious text, why do people often undermine any literary considerations and only take it as is?

Maybe I don't fully understand your question, but the Bible is the most studied literary text in history as far as I can tell.

To me, I think the number of phrases which there is serious debate between literary and literal meaning is rather minimal.  For instance, 70 X 7 might be an example.  For instance, the biggest hermeneutic or interpretive difference among Christians is about what to do with context.  Both sides of the divide seem to suggest the context is important....but one side is less willing to remove passages based on context and the other is less willing to do so.  This later group thinks they risk imposing a human or modern values and template on the text....and moreover that such interpretive license may risk further interpretive license across the board. And it seems that you seem to take into account that....different literary types deserve different interpretive frame. I'm not sure what you mean in either #1 or #2, I'm sorry.

Every interpretation of the text is heavily dependent on the reader. The further the distance from an actual author, the more heavily dependent it is on the reader and the reader's cultural location.  But when it comes to a literary work, such as Dicken's Bleak House or Tolstoy's Anna Karenina, this "Reader's Response" interpretation is acknowledged. The interpreters acknowledge their own distance from the text. Yet with the bible, nobody acknowledges their distance from the text. This is because they really want to control the text. The bible is acknowledged as a powerful religious text, and therefore, if you can control the interpretation of the bible, you can control people. If you are "correct" in how you read the bible, then you are "correct" and others are "incorrect" which is a method of domination. Even atheists fall into this trap... maybe especially atheists. What shocks me the most is that fundamentalists and atheists probably have VERY similar ways of reading the bible. They both think "That's just what it says" but of course come up with very different interpretations of what it says. Fundamentalists claim, "Women need to obey men" because that's what the bible says! Atheists claim, "The bible contradicts itself" because that's just what the bible says! But interpreting any 2000 year old text like that is highly problematic. Neither of these groups acknowledge interpretive issues. Neither of them acknowledge their distance from the author. They are both trying to control the text to force their own agenda. Whenever you bring up interpretation or interpretive issues, they think you're twisting or contorting the text or making excuses. Maybe its because many atheists used to be fundamentalists at some point. It'd be interesting to make fundamentalists and atheists sit through a class on literary theory. They'd be surprised to see that EVERY text has these same issues and that people are not twisting anything. People just simply see texts differently than each other. That's the lesson of Derrida and the Deconstructionists.

Because people have beliefs, rather than ideas. Changing a belief is nearly impossible, especially in spiritual matters. To say anything that dares defy that belief that those words in the bible are divine , as opposed to the words being of man, is to shake the foundation of their belief system and that cant be allowed to happen. So, they choose the path of least resistance, blindly believing because they've been told to do so