I am religious, also consider myself an objectivist in every area except that I think god exists. I can combine objectivism with my religion just fine. In fact I would say that the one place that Rand was totally nonobjective is when evaluating the existence of some kind of creator. The idea that it occurred without a mind behind it is ludicrous.

Its an Axiom that some mind capable of understanding the needed chemistry, biology and engineering processes of creating a world, sun, moon... had to do so at some time. As we gain greater understanding of how it was done we to may one day reach the point where we can create a sun, world moon and everything needed to have life evolve. It may have been watched and guided or it may have been left to do its thing on its own, all of the building blocks in place. The building blocks them-self needed a mind to put them in place, this is fact.

One need only open there eyes and look around to know that some creator exists. To take it a step further, I think you can use objectivism to define a great deal of what that mind must of been like (or still is like) in order to accomplish what it so obviously did.

For me my religion and objectivism click together and fit incredibly well. They complement each other. I think Glenn Beck (same religion) would see it as well. however Romney would not, and Herry Reid would see them as in direct conflict with one and other.

As with all things with any complexity to them. If everyone agrees then only one person is using there mind. The rest are just following the one thinker in the room.

Which is which in your opinion

The intention of good will reflects your own essential good. That is true. "Do unto others..." is not the same as "I swear by my life..." The first is other-directed; the second begins with "I". And it makes a difference. You may not know what someone else needs. Treating them DIFFERENTLY than you want to be treated might be the better alternative. Certainly you must know of times when you were troubled and wanted to be left alone to sort it out; and at other times, you wanted to share with someone else. So, how am I to know your mood versus my own preferences? You might say "Leave me alone" and I might accept that. But your mother would know whether you mean it or not.

As above, I suggest that you have no idea what Jesus really said unless you have access to the original works. Translations are interpretations. In Italian, regarding translation of Dante, they have a pun: Traduttore e traditore - "To translate is to betray." (Literally, to carry over is to deliver.) I find it highly ironic that fundamentalist Christians rely on books that were held for over 1000 years by the Church they condemn as false. They are no more reliable records than the newspapers in Orwell's 1984: who controls the past controls the future.

Yes, they come to Atlas Shrugged for the anti-socialist message, but have not integrated the philosophy into their personal worldview. If you understand even "Galt's Speech" you must be clear that religion is incompatible with reality, reason, ego, liberty, and pro-life art.

I do not know what minniepuck means by a "schism". Differences exist, but no one is denied access to institutional engagements. The ARI and Atlas Society went their separate ways, indeed, but your being here or not is not contingent on your belonging to one or to the other or to something else. Schisms, though, do define religions; and for them, those do matter.

Ayn Rand's letter to Reverend Dudley is easy to find. She had some nice things to say about Christianity -- but only one or two...

It is important to understand that when Laurence M. Vance speaks of the King James Bible and says that it does not matter which version you use, he is being highly personal and highly putative. It is an article of faith that the only texts which are the Revealed Word of God are the original Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew texts. Any translation is only a GUIDE written by a person. Catholics make fun of Protestants by quipping, "The King James Version was good enough for Saint Paul and it's good enough for me." The KJV is missing several books. You can use the Bible to justify anything, good, bad, great, or evil -- and it has been done... and done too often.

If you look into Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, or whatever, the same is true. In India, Indira Gandhi's own Sikh body guards killed her for allowing a Hindu temple on a Sikh holy site.

You show me where the students of Schroedinger, insulted over the non-dead cat, killed someone from Copenhagen physics, or where a student of Einstein use dice as shrapnel for an attack on Heisenberg's classroom.

Can good people do good works because of their religions? Yes. Good people are good, by identity and tautology. But only religion can justify the horrible evils.

As for the claim that "even Stalin could not wipe out religion" that misidentifies Soviet communism. Totalitarianism is just another religion. By the same token, the Calvinists could not wipe out the Baptists - there's a lot of bodies at the bottom of Lake Geneva - but both are still religions.

indeed

If they both agree the gov't should not establish a state religion, though, it ought to be a big tent.

lol I don't know

How can any rational, thinking person considering the history of religion in our world conceive of compatibility between libertarianism and any religion? I'm not talking about a personal belief in the concept of a god or higher power. Though I find no basis in reality for a belief in either, I don't argue another's belief.
But libertarianism is strictly based on the limits to governance of only using violence for defense of the natural rights of the individual, while the history of religion is violence after violence against those same rights and the total denial of those rights in many cases. Religions seem to be primarily interested in demanding compliance and justifying violences against others just to make their ism more 'true' than the other's.

KYFHO

I think libertarians need to realize they have a wide umbrella of like minded people with a common goal of minimal government. There's a lot of infighting that goes on especially when they have such a simple goal.

I saw the same infighting among communists when I circled their groups, but their differences in beliefs are a lot more conflicting than the libertarian goal.

Agreed

It is not hard to reconcile Rand's teachings from Christianity. Jesus' golden rule is "Do unto others as you would have them do to you. How different is this from what John has inscribed on his power plant. A believe in man's greatness and a belief in Genesis and God's gift of freedom are compatible.

I found the biggest social liberals are non-religious.... They follow in the footsteps of brother VI Lenin... The more they follow the athiest dogma, the more they seem to follow the moocher dogma... Jus' sayin...

ok, this is where I'm coming from:

a libertarian believes in the non-aggression principle.

a Libertarian is a member of the Libertarian Party.

I don't like going into the "little L, big L" thing (I wish they'd just be named two different things), but I think in this case it's important I point it out because I'm not referring to the Libertarian party. anyway, it's all convoluted and the lines are messy. I'm trying to work from the article which states it's a political philosophy.

Organized religions are collectivists.

one is a philosophy the other is a political platform

yep, which is why i think a lot of people here say they're not objectivists. what troubles me is when people say the libertarian movement has been influenced by Rand, who was an atheist. then, you have a schism between people who mostly agree with Rand, but still believe in god vs more objectivist leaning libertarians.