More humanist horseshit from John Halstead:
Meanings have Words
The most common statement I hear from True Believing Pagans is that “words have meaning”, usually in reference to words like “Pagan” or “polytheist” or “gods”. What they really mean by this is that “words have one meaning” and that one meaning is the meaning that they prefer. It is curious to hear such a “monotheistic” statement (read “one faith, one baptism; one God”) when made by True Believing Pagan polytheists, who one would think would place greater value on diversity of belief. It is also strange to hear such an authoritarian approach to language adopted by Pagans, who generally tend to be antinomian in so many other ways.
“Words have meaning” is simply an indirect way of saying, “I have the right to define words the way I want, and you do not.” The fact is that words don’t have have a meaning (singular); they have meanings (plural). A simple perusal of the dictionary demonstrates this. And because language is constantly evolving, many meanings are not even in the dictionary. This means that historical usage, while instructive, is not determinative of meaning. Meanings are worked out in the present. They are worked out in community. And they arise from consensus, not authority — whether that authority is history, the dictionary, or any self-proclaimed Pagan Pope-for-a-day …
What a perfect example of liberal atheist nonsense. “Meanings have words”?! He is literally turning the meaning of things upside down. What’s really going on is that Halstead doesn’t want to be bound by any fixed meaning, so he can make words mean whatever he wants. Then atheists can call themselves “pagan” and Jungian archetypalists can say they worship “gods.” I’ve said it before: “Wishing doesn’t make it so.” Words have meanings. Those meanings are in the dictionary. And the rest is pseudo-intellectual babble.
“If evil though knowest, then proclaim it to all as evil, and make no friendship with foes.” — Havamal