Why I Don't Examine the Dirty Laundry...

It was laundry day today.

There were 4 loads. I left the white load for last.

I just dump the stuff in, add detergent and softener (and bleach for the whites), set the dials, and let it run.

And no, I never examine the pockets of clothing or stick my hands to examine what might be in the folds. If you are lucky, and I happen to feel a watch or a phone poking at me, I will check. But if it isn't making itself known, I am not putting my hand down in there.

I have had some nasty experiences in the past, so I just dump and run.

Now, someone had left a sealed plastic back of extremely filthy white socks by the washing machine.

When I opened the bag, I got a whiff and nearly gagged. The stuff was really, REALLY, rancid.

So I dumped it in, tossed a white towel on top and a sheet or two, and made the detergent extra strong, with extra bleach, and an extra long cycle of hot water. (If things come out not-so-clean afterwards, I will sometimes soak them in bleach for awhile and give them a quick run-through, which usually does the trick. But that is only for clothes that have already been cleaned!)

So when the White was was done, I opened the top loader and started taking clothes out and transferring them to the laundry basket so that I can carry them outside to hang to dry.

And then I saw it.

At the bottom of the washing machine was a centipede that was longer than my forefinger and nearly as thick. It looked like this:

It apparently had not survived the ordeal, although it was still intact. And while I pondered various sinister plots concerning the use of its corpse, I thought better of it and just dropped it into the trash.

And THAT, my dear friends, is exactly why I never put my hands into clothes to search for the unknown!

The "Situation" - A Primer

In the current state of affairs where Israel is at war with Hamas, several points have been brought up, both by supporters and detractors. A few of these need to be explained in a rational manner so that reasonable people can come to an informed view concerning "the situation", as it is normally referred to in Hebrew (המצב).

The points that I want to cover are the usual expressions:

• The Jewish People/Nation/Land
• Ancient Palestinian People.
• The Green Line
• Settlements

Most of these get some sort of gut-reaction from either side of the argument, so let's just touch on these for now. (I may expand further in the future).

The Jewish People/Nation/Land

It should be noted that religious (practicing and believing) Jews are a minority within Israel. A poll taken seven years ago shows that the majority of the Jews are either non-observant, non-believing, or anti-religious. While it was about 60% back then, today it is likely higher, based on trends. This means that the majority of the Jews in Israel do not hold that they have a right to live there because God said so, any more than English immigrants had a divine right to build, expand, and settle in North America and found their state.

While it is often touted that "there has always been a Jewish presence in Israel", that statement needs to be expanded. In reality, while there may have been some Jews at some point in history living there when no Jews would move there, the fact is, they most likely integrated with the small Arab presence that was dwelling there. In the Arab section of Hebron, some buildings have mezzuzot (Jewish article that is put upon the doorpost) that would seem to indicate the assimilation process. If you read the writings of Rabbi Yehudah HaLevi ("The Kuzari"), you will see that this assimilation into Arab culture (not to be confused with Muslim culture) was a big fear among Jewish leaders.

The founder of the modern state of Israel was Theodor Herzl.He was a a Jew and an atheist. He saw that while Jews in France (notable the Dreyfus Affair) were assimilated and non-observant, they were still hated to the point of sending an innocent to his death with the crowds chanting "kill the Jew, kill the Jew". So he formed the First Jewish Congress with the intent of finding a place where Jews could live together in peace and without fear from non-Jews (which hasn't worked out well). He preferred Uganda, but after his death, that idea fell apart and Israel was the place to go to.

The novel "Exodus" by Leon Uris gives a good overview of the "1st Aliyah" (the period of immigration that ended at the beginning of the 20th century, to be continued by the next wave) up until the founding of the state.

As Jews arrived, there was a cooperation among the Arabs who lived there. Most of Israel was not cultivated, but was the place of nomads. It was a lot of desert and a harsh of a place for most people to live. Mark Twain had visited during the summer when most of the nomadic people had traveled to better climates, and to him it appeared deserted. While that famous quote of his is often taken out of context to show it was nearly empty, it does reflect the harshness and the lack of permanence in the land.

The Jews settled where nobody else wanted to. That which was owner-less was built upon, and the better areas were sometimes purchased. (In the town where I live, Efrat, the land was purchased from the Arab family that owned it. This was before it became a capital offence to sell land to Jews, which came into effect the latter part of the 20th century). 

I want to emphasize "cooperation". The nomads did not care about some group of Jews who wanted to drain a malaria-infested swamp and build a town there. And there was an exchange of goods and services. It would have been impossible for those of the First Aliyah Jews to come and survive without the help from the neighbors.

Ancient Palestinian People

The Arabs who lived there did not call themselves "Palestinians". That was a term applied by a non-Arab source to them as a wink to the Biblical enemy of the Jews. But it is ironic that at the time that it was given, it was not the Arab residents who were the problem, but the Turks (Ottoman Empire). 

The number of Jews coming grew and grew and there was no secret that they wanted a State of Israel, a State of the Jews, also called a "Jewish State". As to who was a Jew, that definition was pretty loose. And that definition would become more loose after WWII.

From the other states nearby (Lebanon, Egypt, Syria, and so forth), Arabs began immigrating into Israel as well. And so, like the Americans and the French, competition for who could settle the most land (as the USA and French did for Florida and Louisiana, for example). Think of it as a game of "Risk". If you could plop a shack on a spot of land, it was considered settled. Sometimes you had entire villages of empty buildings that were established specifically to lay claims. There were skirmishes, but nothing wide ranged or long lasting. So you had Arab immigrants (Yassar Arafat, of recent memory, for example, was from Egypt). 

For a collection of Arabs to claim that they stem from an ancient line of a Palestinian people is inaccurate. But to claim that they have a common bond and a settlement claim, that is certainly accurate. Unfortunately, that has been discarded for propaganda. In fact, they Arabs who had been settling the land hated the term "Palestinian" and when, offered a title of a state nearly 80 years ago, they rejected it. They considered themselves Syrian, and so forth, saying:

"There is no such country as Palestine. 'Palestine' is a term the Zionists invented. There is no Palestine in the Bible. Our country was for centuries part of Syria. 'Palestine' is alien to us. It is the Zionists who introduced it". - Auni Bey Abdul-Hadi, Syrian Arab leader to British Peel Commission, 1937

This is but an overview, and since I have introduced the British, let's talk about "the Green Line".

The Green Line

In the 1920's the League of Nations drafted a legal document called "The British Mandate". With this, Great Britain was to oversee the politics of the area and maintain peace after the defeat of the Ottoman Empire that had been the reigning government for a very long time. At that time you had Jews of Israel wanting to serve the British army to aid them with the intent of acquiring a future state, and you had "Lawrence of Arabia" encouraging the Arabs to revolt and take the land for themselves.

Once you had the fall of the Ottoman empire, Britain was the residing army and police. To quell the occasional uprising by the Arabs or Jews, they would paint a sign on a building of one or the other, depending upon whom they were threatening, and stated that if one British subject was harmed in any way, that building would be bombed. It did not take too many examples for the residents to believe and behave. And, of course, the world was silent about this "collective punishment".

The problem got worse when, in 1922, the League of Nations declared:

Communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone.

The Arabs claimed that the land was theirs from this. The Jews staked their claim from this. And so, from this, a line was drawn on a map, defining which was to to be the land of the Arabs and which was to be the land of the Jews. (At this point, the Arabs still did not refer to themselves as Palestinians). Check out this map, and you will see that the Arab State was to get the lion's share of the land.

The green area, the original West Bank (75% of the land), was for the Arab State, and the red area (the remaining 25%), was for the Jewish State. 

And then, things went south, as politics often do. The French took over Syria, they declared the green area as no-man's land, and the League of Nations declared that the green area was to be separate from what is called Palestine, and so, the red area, the smaller portion was to be split, And so, a green marker was used to delineate this. And Jews who live to the west of the green line are said to be living "over the green line".

It should be noted that the Palestinians, under the leadership of Yassar Arafat tried to take back the green area that had since been taken over by Jordan ("Trans-Jordan"). Jordan had attempted to have the Egyptian Arafat and his people be absorbed into that area under the rule of Jordan, but his plans were for self-rule. In attempting to take it over, approximately 5,000 Palestinians were killed and the PLO returned to Israel while many Arabs chose to live in Jordan, where they reside in refugee camps to this day. It is interesting that the world was silent while thousands of Palestinians were killed by Jordanians and living in refugee camps, and still is.

Settlements

Of course, there is a lot of history there, but I just want to touch on a couple of other points. The first is "settlements". 

You often hear that the Jews have settlements. And you hear that the settlements are an obstacle to peace. 

That is a red herring. 

Here is the thing. If a line would be drawn on the map as to where the separating line would be, then if there is an Arab settlement in Israel, then those Arabs could keep their homes, and pay taxes to Israel and be an Israeli citizen if the choose. On the other hand, if there are Jews living where the Arabs would define their state, then they would have to leave. But in no case does the existence of a "settlement" by Arabs or Jews determine of the Jewish side or the Arab side will get it or not.

It is often said that the settlers stole the land. In many cases Jews purchased land from the Arabs. The fact that their leadership no longer recognizes such transactions as valid is irrelevant. In other cases, non-settled areas, such as the top of a rocky hill, had "hilltop youth" settle there. It was ownerless. Now, because of Israel's sensitivity to this, permits are now required and "illegal settlements" (those created without the legal paperwork, not settlements existing in areas where those opposed to Israel dismiss their existence as valid). Illegal settlements are destroyed. Both sides say that the Israeli government is playing favorites.

In 2007, after being pressured by the Bush White House, Ariel Sharon expelled the Jews from Gush Katif. In that area, which was taken from Egypt as part of an agreement at the end of the Sinai war, was where a large percentage of the country's produce was grown. That infrastructure was left, money was earmarked to train Palestinians to produce vegetables and learn hydroponics, and one group of investors were ready to fork over money to build a casino by the beach, since there are no casinos in Israel..

The Jews were evicted and lost their businesses and homes and how their exile occurred was a tragedy imposed by the Israeli government. To this day, many have not recovered. And what happened to the horticultural centers?

Fatah, the ruling body of the time, torched everything. Destroyed synagogues, homes, and businesses. They burnt it all, making it Jew-free. Military training camps were set up, and the casino idea fell apart from that. And then, Hamas ousted Fatah, and the leader of Fatah, Abbas, became a persona non grata, staying in Ramallah for his own safety.

And so, the terrorist group, Hamas, took the land given to Fatah by Israel, land that was never considered to be part of Palestine - an illegal settlement.

Summary

The current situation is not an ancient one. It has not existed for 2,000 years as some would say, nor even 200 years. It is not an ancient war, but one that is younger than the United States.

The Jews did not steal the land. Most Jews do not believe that it is their divine right to live there, but is their human right to live safely and among those who wish to live among them. Muslims and Christians also make up part of the country, and Arabs have a seat in the Kenesset (Congress). The Israeli Army is made up of not only Jews (believers and non-believers), but of Muslims and Christians as well. 

This is not a religious war from the point of view of Israel, but a war about survival. The Jews have a right to live. The Arabs have a right to live. Unfortunately, there is a radical element (not just Hamas, but Fatah, the Muslim Brotherhood and others) that use the citizenry who are not aligned with any of them as pawns.

And, unfortunately, when Israel shoots a building full of weapons, and someone's son, daughter, mother, father, or whatever gets killed, you end up with people who were not part of the war becoming active participants. And so, if Jews get killed, Hamas wins. And if Arabs get killed, Hamas wins.

A couple of additional point that are often misused.

You will read that most of the people killed in Gaza are civilians.

Most of |Hamas are civilians. When a teenager takes a weapon and points it at an IDF soldier, he is a civilian. And this is not just the case of children. I prefer "non-combatant", which is not a term that you will ever see reported.

You will hear that Israel is shooting indiscriminately.

If you take the total number of shells, missiles, and drone shootings that have occurred from Israel, you must realize that they are incredibly bad at hitting their targets, taking more than one missile to kill one person, or that they are incredibly good at their job, and non-combatants are not their targets. And what you do not hear so much outside of Israel is the terror of the young who have to scramble out of their beds and get to a bomb shelter in less than a minute, or the funerals that follow. We have had too many in recent days.

You will also read that Israel is using disproportional force. And yet, while 100 and more missiles were flying into Israel every day since March, the world was silent. And when the population was in real danger and Israel could not take any more and shot back, the world went into an uproar. The number of people killed on one side versus the other is meaningless. If they had meaning, then the winner of any war should be considered evil, and the loser, good. 

So when you read a report, think on these things and remember that they lies often repeated do not make themselves truth. 

I may post another about this if questions arise. And I might not.

The Universe does NOT revolve around you

In the geocentrism vs the heliocentric view of our solar system, you will sometimes hear:

"The Universe is infinite, so the Earth IS the center of the Universe!"

Let's get one thing straight. In this weird debate, it is not about where is the position of the Earth in the Universe. This belief in a geocentric solar system has been going on for 3500 years or more - long before science ever conceived of the possibility of other galaxies, and before Hubble determined that the Universe was expanding equally in all places.

No. It is about believing that the sun travels around the Earth rather than the other way around.

Yes, where you are standing, you are in the center of the Universe, but the Universe does not revolve around you. Voyager II, which has left our solar system is also in the center of the Universe, and the Universe does not revolve around it. So, while it is interesting to conceive of an infinite number of centers within infinity, it is not addressing the question of the sun rotating around the Earth.

Because, if it were true that everything is in the center and that everything rotates around everything that is in the center, well, it would be impossible to do something useful, such as send the Rover to Mars, because we would never be able to calculate where it would be for that remote device to reach the surface.

So, no, being "the center" of infinity does not mean that everything revolves around the Earth anymore than everything revolved around Neptune, including us. All it means is that the Universe is a big place and it is difficult to measure.

Now, it is true, that using Relativity, that from the point of view of the astronauts on the International Space Station, the Earth is the center, simply because the ISS is in a geocentric orbit. And if a killer asteroid was in proximity to the Earth, we would use a geocentric targeting system because, from the point of view of the asteroid, the Earth is the center. But from the point of view of the Mars Rover, looking up towards the Earth, that relationship is not in place because Mars does not revolve around the Earth, and so, from it's heliocentric point of view, the Earth is just one more spheroid that is caught in the immense gravity of the Sun and is circling it in an elliptical orbit.

I can understand why many people want the Earth to not only be the center, but to have the entire Universe bow to and circle the Earth. After all, according to one geocentric-centered movie, to be the true center and have everything revolve around you makes you special, and science had caused so many things to no longer be special.

And so, all sorts of complicated reasons as to why the Sun revolves around the Earth must be true are tossed around. Some are more complicated than others.

Sometimes, the simple answer is the correct one. We live in a SOLAR system, and we are but one small planet that rotates around it.

The Kablan from Efrat...

In the town where I live, we communicate between one another using the GROUPS feature of Yahoo. You send an email, and every resident who is registered will receive it. It is a nice way to find out recommendations, get a ride, discover what is happening, and so forth.

Recently, several people have been posting how WONDERFUL a particular kablan (general handyman contractor) is. What most don't realize is that this kablan encourages (pushes) people to give him glowing testimonies. And if that were all of it, that would not be so bad. But the fact is, these testimonies are misleading (not intentionally by them), and that needs to be addressed.

In early March, we had a heavy period of rains. During that time, the roof of our house had a couple of small leaks. It was coming from the roof, into the attic, and dripping through the sheet rock ceiling of one of our bedrooms. I called the kablan (hereafter known as "K."), to fix those two small leaks.

Without going into the attic, he looked at the roof, and said that the problem was that the water was going down the sides of the walls and instead of going down a gutter area, it was going under the clay tiles of the roof, and the wood under there was not in good shape. So, for 5500 shekels, he would build a couple of concrete troughs for the water to fall into and redirect it, and would apply a waterproofing to them.

K.: "You gave me my first job in Efrat, so I do for you a special price. Anyone else, I charge 12,000 shekels. But you are my special customer. For you I only charge 5,500 shekels."

Warning signals should have gone off in my head. And yes, I had used him before. My step-son asked, why I used him again, since his backyard work was so shoddy. I suppose it was selective memory. I had hired K. to oversee the fixing of a disaster that another group had done in the back yard. It certainly looked better, even though it wasn't great. And I had hired him then because he needed the work.

And so his scheme to put in some sort of stronger gutter system sounded plausible. Yes, I should have been concerned how he came up with this "5,500 shekel" amount from nowhere. I should have also have question his avoidance to even peek into my attic and look at the two small holes. Maybe a small patch job there would have been useful. But he was the expert in these matters.

Or so I thought.

I discussed this with my neighbor, since we share the same roof, and we agreed that he would pay 1/2 of the cost (2,750 shekels) since a wall in his security room was getting wet. K. was emphatic that the neighbor was to pay half, and his special price was only because he was doing this for me.

After he began work, K. felt that the front of the roof needed the same work. I questioned that because we had no leaks coming from that slope, but only from the back slope. He convinced me that it would be the best thing to do, and I agreed. Since this would not be affecting the neighbor, I did not include him for this extra 5500 shekels. The bill was now 11,000 shekels.

K. then decided, on his own to do some things that we did not agree on. He added that cement to the peak of the roof, leaving a grey line across the top, and then he started painting the bricks of our house and the houses on either side, with this gooey white water resistant sealer. The picture below shows the mess that he was only beginning to make. That bright white section is not paint, but a sealer, sort of like what you might use around your bathtub or sink. And if you look to the peak, as a long line, the light grey that we never agreed to, standing out.

You can see the bright white area on the top of the lower roof. This is the trough that he made from concrete and decided to pain this goo from roof-to-roof.

And it gets better!

The house to the left is a different neighbor, who was not involved in this. (She came out of her house this morning and confronted K., who gave her some halfhearted excuse. I was in the house looking outside during this and will need to apologize to her for him ruining her house as well.) That stone edging on their roof, on the right side of it, is also covered in this goo. This goo can also be seen from the back. Buckets of it were brought in, and had I not intervened, our house, and those of the neighbors, would have looked like the "marshmallow man" lived there.

I had a "conversation" with K. outside, in public, where I shouted, using my training as an ex-sailor, in ways that he would understand that I was not happy. He tried to explain that water goes into stone and so the stones need to be covered. Of course, he didn't mention that hundreds of thousands of homes in Israel are made of the same stone. Dolomite (the form of "Jerusalem Stone" that is used for ornamental work, such as the outside of buildings, while having some degree of porousness, does not leak. If it did, then why are not all of the home in Israel covered in white goo?!

After half an hour of shouting at him, he agreed to remove the excess goo from my house and that of the neighbors.

In the meantime, he told the neighbor to our left, the one who also had a small leak, that he has a few tiles that were token, and asked if he wanted to replace them. The neighbor agreed, and was told that 19 tiles were cemented down and it would cost 2000 shekels. Later, when confronted, he admitted it was just a couple of used tiles, and still wanted 2000 shekels. After one more shouting match (not with the neighbor, since he is far more softer spoken than I am), K. relented. Please note that there was no real cost of labor or materials for him (the Arabs he brought in were for the entire day and it was leftover material), and that I had not yet paid him. 

I was waiting for this saga to end.

On the last day, my neighbor brought an expert to look at the roof, and the two of them went up. When they came down, K. had just arrived and was livid, since he realized what was going on - he had been caught in a lie and acted like the victim in this drama. He furiously told them to go, and that he was not going to work on my neighbor's house...ever! Not only had he been caught in lying, telling them that 19 tiles had been replaced, but what little was done was certainly not worth 2,000 shekels. Yes, he had been caught - charging three times or more as his "special price as a favor to my friend Eliyahu".  

Now, what about the goo?

Well, he tried electric sanders. I could have told him that it was folly to try that on that stuff. Then he asked for some matches and went outside. I looked up and they were trying a blow torch! While it did melt the goo, it also blackened the rock, and K. realized that wouldn't work either. I was waiting for him to recommend acid (dolomite would bubble and turn into CO2, but it might have been fun to watch him try!)

At least it doesn't look like this:

I told him to paint the peak of the roof the same color, clean off the windows of my solar panels that had concrete  residue on them, as well as any other mess, and to just get out. I would pay him all that I agreed to, but I wanted him out.

In the meantime, his workers, (unguarded Arabs) were going to other houses on our streets, offering to do work that may or may not be necessary for prices that, apparently, were far above the norm. A local fellow who does this for a living was approached, and after being told why he needs it and being given the price, refused.

So here I am, in my gooey house, wondering if, when the rains come in another 9 months or so, if those same two spots will go "drip...drip...drip...". I might as well buy a 15-shekel tube of white goo, a small tube, and seal the inside by myself, now that the rains are done. 

I had hoped that he would have said, "I messed up. Sorry. Just pay me (some lesser amount)". But there was no apology, and no reduction in what he accepted. And so, he greedily counted the fifty-five 200-shekel bills twice to make sure that they were all there. 

Even though I had hoped for something ethical, I was not surprised that nothing of the sort was forthcoming.

He did send me an e-mail several days later and offered to paint the goo a better color. Obviously, it would require that most of the house would be repainted. I didn't even ask how much, but simply told him that I will have someone else correct his work. I have added his email address to my spam filter.

[Update: K. did forward a message to me that said he could get a 95% match on the color and gave me a price. However, each individual stone that he ruined was cut more than 25 years ago and was textured. This means no stone is a single flat color. And so his claim of "95%" is just a number he made up (like so many things he does), and it would look only worse. Obviously, his offer to charge me to make his bad work look even worse did nothing to change my opinion of him.]

It should be noted that I spoke to the mother of my neighbor, and told her to tell her son that he need not pay me until he was 100% confident that this mess fixed his problem, and then, only the 2,750 that we initially agreed. If he sees that the problem still exists, then he need not pay me at all. (And if he has a problem with the mess, I will take less out of my embarrassment for the entire episode.)

My recommendation is this: if you see a recommendation for someone on the Efrat list, don't accept that as "gospel". Find out if it is the same work, find out what the price was, and then ask others. Because if someone can easily afford 11,000 shekels, he or won't think that 11,000 is too much, and might give a raving review. And maybe someone likes white goo splashed all over the outside walls because it gives a nice snowy feeling. Be careful. Be very, very, careful. And for your own sanity, PLEASE, make a contract listing exactly what the person is to do, and that they are forbidden to deviate from that. At all. EVER!

b'hatzlacha!

The word "Bible"

Since I have received a complaint about using the term "Bible" when speaking of various narratives within the Jewish text, I am posting here to elaborate for those who require more information.

First, the Jewish text, of the 5 books, are Bereshit (בראשית), Shemot (שמות), Vayikra (ויקרא), Bamidbar (במדבר), and Devarim (דברים). In the non-Hebrew world, these five books are also called Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, respectively. Yes, even Jews will sometimes refer to them by their more common non-Hebrew names.

Collectively, they compose that which is called Torah. (תורה). Also, collectively, they are sometimes referred to as Chumash (חומש), from the Hebrew word for "5", and sometimes the long form is used.

Now there are other Hebrew books as well. You have the books of Navi'im (נביאים) or "Prophets" and Chatuvim (כתובים) or "Writings". 

So The words Torah and Navi'im, and Chatuvim make up the acronym "TaNaCh" (the "Ch" is a guttural sound, like the ending for the composer Bach.

So Jews will often refer to the entire collection as the Tanach. 

When you got to a hotel outside of Israel and see a free Bible waiting for you, it contains the Tanach in the front part, and the Christian texts that follow it. In the non-Jewish world, the Jewish part is often call the "Old Testament", as in something that was superseded, and the Christian part is called the "New Testament", as in something that has replaced the old. Sometimes the abbreviations "OT" and "NT" are used.

However, Jews typically find the term "Old Testament" insulting and will rarely ever use it. 

So what is that book called that combines the two?

In Hebrew it is a transliteration of the common term "Bible" (ביבל) or biblia (ביבליה) as a higher form variant. 

And so, when I speak of the narratives in the Jewish text, that are considered part of the Christian text, I will sometimes use the term "Bible" when I want to infer an inter-relationship, or "Scripture". Sometimes I will have "Scripture" be preceded by the religious adjective ("Jewish Scripture"). Sometimes I will omit the adjective when the reference is obvious, or use "Bible" when I want to address both religions.

Since Islam does not have one text that combines the Christian text with the Jewish one, "Bible" will never be used by me to refer to that faith, even though it may have connection to certain specific beliefs. It is not that I don't hold that Islam has a similar acceptance, but that it holds itself outside of the Biblical narrative, and does not provide a text that combines the other two (a sort of New-NEW-Testament Bible).

Finally, you will find that many Scriptural scholars who write in Hebrew will use ביבל (bible) or biblia (ביבליה) when referring to the joined texts or when referring to a core idea with a common point of view (as in the American expression "Judeo-Christian").

Granted, Judaism and Christianity have less in common than they do in common, but "Bible" is a valid expression and is used widely, and so, it is valid that I use it as well in the context that I do.

Hopefully this will clear up some confusion!