Suchergebnisse

Jesus preached the kingdom of God, with the principle of general reciprocity as a cardinal aspect. For Jesus, this kingdom was an alternative social world to the oppressive and exploitative social system of the Greco-Roman world. This article seeks to analyse the parable of the Lost Son (Luke 15:11-32), focusing on Luke 15:11-13, against the socio-economic background of first century Palestine. Special attention is given to the youngest son's decision to leave the house and his possible motive for doing so. The view is that texts are the products of the specific social systems in which they originated, and therefore the social scientific approach is used to analyse this text. The conclusion reached is that the political and tax systems of the Greco-Roman world were extremely exploitative, while the kingdom of God, as an alternative social order, advocated the principle of general reciprocity and the sharing of resources. Jesus het die koninkryk van God verkondig, met die beginsel van algemene wederkerigheid as 'n kardinale aspek daarvan. Vir Jesus was dié koninkryk 'n alternatiewe sosiale wêreld teenoor en die onderdrukkende en uitbuitende sosiale stelsel van die Grieks-Romeinse wêreld. Hierdie artikel poog om die gelykenis van die Verlore Seun (Lukas 15:11-32), met as fokus Lukas 15:11-13, te analiseer teen die sosio-ekonomiese agtergrond van Palestina in die eerste eeu. Spesiale aandag word gegee aan die jongste seun se besluit om die huis te verlaat en moontlike motief daaragter. Daar word van die standpunt uitgegaan dat tekste die produkte is van die spesifieke sosiale stelsels waarin hulle ontstaan het, en daarom word die sosiaal-wetenskaplike benadering gebruik om dié teks te analiseer. Die konklusie waartoe gekom word, is dat die politieke- en belastingstelsel van die Grieks-Romeinse wêreld uiters uitbuitend was, terwyl die koninkryk van God, as alternatiewe sosiale orde, die beginsel van algemene wederkerigheid en die deel van hulpbronne voorgestaan het.

Migrants occupy a special place within the discourse of human rights. They live their lives in a country which is not their own, putting a claim on communities, to which they are not a member, to recognize them as rights-bearers. They do so on the basis of their membership to the family of human beings, which defines the core of what it means to have human rights. At the same time, the framework of human rights as the corner stone of international law endorses the self-sovereignty of bounded political communities that inevitably divides between insiders and outsiders. During the first decades of the human rights movement, this discrepancy between universal personhood and the sovereignty of states was easily ignored as the dominant worldview rested comfortably on the assumption that all residents of states were members. The presence of non-members within the border of the state was considered an anomaly, a consequence of war and other human inflicted horrors that the human rights framework precisely intended to prevent. Since the 1960s, the share of migrants in the global population fluctuates around the 3 percent, and the issue of migration has appeared on the political agenda of most countries, whether sending, transit or host countries. The focus shifted from refugee protection to national security and border control, and organized migration became progressively more restrictive, selective, and temporary. These changes severely eroded the agency and negotiation power of migrants. Migration has become an increasingly risky and hazardous undertaking. Refugees, asylum seekers, and migrant workers are subject to exclusionary policies and get caught up quite easily in situations that could be considered humiliating and degrading. It raises the question whether the framework of human rights is fit to respond adequately to the phenomenon of migration. Can the human rights accorded to non-members protect them against violations of their dignity? What rights should a person be able to claim when states are committed to leaving the self-respect of all people under their jurisdiction intact, including those people who are considered to be outsiders because they are not citizens? In this thesis, I answer these questions by positioning the non-member as the core representant of the rights-holder. Focusing on harms inflicted on citizens teaches us about states failing to measure up to the commitments that are part of the framework of human rights. A focus on non-members adds something else; it draws our attention to existing gaps within human rights law. Acknowledging that the foundational concept of human dignity is open to multiple interpretations, I propose the notion of non-humiliation as the bare minimum of what dignity should entail. My interpretation of the concept of non-humiliation finds its origin in the ideas of Avishai Margalit. The principal motifs in humiliation are rejection and the loss of basic control. An account of human rights that interprets human dignity as non-humiliation can be described as philosophia negativa, meaning that the absence of harm takes precedence over the pursuit of the ideal of justice. Based on this thin understanding of human dignity, I re-evaluate the human rights currently claimable by non-members in the realms of work and politics. Based on an understanding of work as a capacity that should be one's inalienable property, I propose to complement the current package of work entitlements with a general right not to be prohibited from working. Based on an understanding of political agency as an essential part of self-expression and belonging, I propose to widen the current human rights regime with a right to consultation, and a right to renounce one's nationality and thereby to claim membership in the host community.

Voorblad -- De Titelpagina van -- Opgedragen aan -- Manifest -- De uitdaging van leiderschap -- Leiderschapscrisis -- Leiderschap is cruciaal -- Ouderschap - ouders zijn net als leiders -- Leiderschapsontwikkeling vs. fouten herhalen -- Zelfvertrouwen -- Vaardigheden of persoonlijkheid? -- Vind de juiste context -- Over dit boek -- Takeaways -- Vragen -- VERHAAL 01: Interview met een old school manager -- 01: De context -- Context en persoonlijke keuze -- De Sustainable Leadership Value Chain -- Welke waarde en voor wie? -- VERHAAL 02: Het doel van human resources -- VERHAAL 03: Het gaat niet over koffie -- VERHAAL 04: Waarde voor de patiënt -- VERHAAL 05: Een bedrijf zonder aandeelhouders -- VERHAAL 06: Werkkapitaal -- Welk gedrag is nodig om waarde te creëren? -- VERHAAL 07: Passie voor sport -- VERHAAL 08: Verkopen zonder te verkopen -- VERHAAL 09: De school -- Welke interne context heb je nodig? -- Hoe beïnvloedt de externe context je? -- Leiderschap als basis voor de value chain -- Takeaways -- Vragen -- 02: De leiderschapslijst -- Maak een lijst -- De top van de lijst -- Goede leiders zijn er voor het leven. -- De leiders onderaan de lijst -- Die ene goddelijke leider -- Jij en de lijst -- VERHAAL 10: De tweede beste leider -- Takeaways -- Vragen -- 03: Karakter -- Karakter -- Empathie -- Rechtvaardigheid -- Wederkerigheid: no one-way street -- Mildheid -- VERHAAL 11: Jacqueline Kiplimo -- VERHAAL 12: H. -- Evenwicht -- De test: 2 leidende vragen -- Decent zijn -- Toxische werkplekken -- Takeaways -- Vragen -- 04: De erosie van karakter -- Ontwikkeling en falend leiderschap -- Erosie -- De sterkte wordt een zwakheid -- VERHAAL 13: De flamboyante CEO -- Iedereen kan ontsporen -- VERHAAL 14: Daedalos en Ikaros -- Het corrumperende effect van macht en geld -- Waarom ben je leider? -- Ethiek -- VERHAAL 15: De ontspoorde professor.