Responding to the Gill/Hiltz thread, it was the Rev. Jim Gill (July 25) who alluded to the Affordable Care Act as “Obamacare,” not the Rev. Jeremy Hiltz (Aug. 3). Hiltz disagreed with “Health care for ‘the least’ exemplifies the Christian way,” which Gill did not actually pen. (The editor did.) Michael Poland (Aug. 13) objecting to Hiltz’s use of “Obamacare” as political apparently missed its origin with Gill. (So it’s OK if a liberal says “Obamacare,” but offensive if a conservative does? Odd.)

Enter the provocative (Aug. 3) “Obamacare exemplifies the way of Satan.” (That is inflammatory to the point of distortion.) Actually, Hiltz’s letter is focused, the “Christian way” being equated with tax-funded health-care for “millions.” Hiltz passes on the impressive legacy of Christian philanthropy and on the fiscal challenge of how to pay for all this.

Still, Hiltz advocates charity as the virtuous alternative to taxes. (That taxation is coercive is indisputable.) We can dispute “burdensome” and we can debate “fair share” healthily. Frankly, I welcome passionate disagreement as vital dissent. Our hope is that better solutions can be attained through debate.

A troublesome note (James Silin, Aug. 13) warns that somebody is using “pre-compiled talking points.” I have concluded that, if the allegation is true, both sides (liberal and conservative) are indulging in the practice. So what?

In my opinion, Hiltz is more authentic than his three detractors — as in less predictable. His Christian perspective is just as welcome as anyone else’s — even Ben Keene’s (Aug. 13), a true believer in socialized medicine. Hiltz’s letter suffers from “complexity.” I read all his references and must say their connection to his main argument was challenging to discover, but he appears to understand Scripture better than those who disagreed with him.

Samuel Richards

East Winthrop