I am giving you a point, not that I agree, but I fear that there are many in here who might agree with you and are strangely silent in this post. so it's a good discussion.
Rand did not focus on atheism or theism because she did not belief it was an important topic. For instance, you can be an atheist-marxist, atheist-altruist, atheist-rationalist. atheist-environmentalist. or an atheist-capitalist. Point: deism, or lack thereof, is not defining her philosophy.

The ENTIRE speech JG makes needs to be in the film. It is crucial so as to reach out to those who know something bad is going on, but can't quite identify it.

in meandering :)

I completely disagree. It is not the job of the virtuous to guide any audience. to create struggles for the most virtuous of men that they inherently do not possess, through their own reason and morality, would be disingenuous and counter-productive.

good. way for coaldigger to come in with a bang...

I have been to many tea party rallies. conservatives plus objectivists plus libertarians plus fiscal democrats plus gays.
the left has no "corner" on bringing their side together other than offering looters loot.
We lost the election because we asked our voting base to compromise (2-TWO presidential cylcels) for an homogenized, principled sometimes but completely unprincipled other times presidential candidate. the establishment asks us to COMPROMISE all the time our basic freedoms (our own side passed the patriot act, sarbanes oxley, played and paid on Wall Street, medicare reform, enormous spending increases, NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND-I can go on and on and on).
we will win when we STOP compromising.

"When men reduce their virtues to the approximate, then evil acquires the force of an absolute, when loyalty to an unyielding purpose is dropped by the virtuous, it’s picked up by scoundrels—and you get the indecent spectacle of a cringing, bargaining, traitorous good and a self-righteously uncompromising evil." Galt's speech
I hope these sentences make it in the movie. They are relevant to the discussion here.

If we play along with the nod to religion-it begs questions. Priest like an Aquinas, priest vs minister(once you put religion in, why priest? why not rabbi? why not minister? why not a prophet?)
One of the most stunning themes in this book are the incredibly difficult decisions the heroes make WITHOUT giving it up to a diety, praying for guidance. The illustration that man has all the "powers" he needs to act in the best way for himself-and so therefore, by that virtue, others benefit.
I am firmly resolute in knowing that such a scene will not advance, in any way, the story. It will lessen the impact of the above speech.
For those who feel it would advance the story-I remind you that religious thinkers who believe much of Objectivism, must bear the burden of that dissonance. They can attempt to resolve the opposing differences, but it is their struggle with Objectivism, not mine. The integrity of the book as published, should be maintained at all costs, and has so far been.

Don't worry. Read my response to k... http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts/13... :)

John's always talked about the priest but the Forbes article really took his comments out of context. What John was saying is that Ayn had written about a priest in her notes - he was to be James' priest to whom he would confess his sins but Ayn decided to leave him out because she couldn't make him believable. John was just free thinking about what the scene might look like.

This is what I was asking. I feel that the US has reached the tipping point in its march to progressive oblivion even though the majority have no interest in becoming a socialist country. The problem is that the left has taken the lead on the basis of the "social issues" that the Conservatives on the right cannot address due to their religious beliefs. There are not enough Objectivists to do much of anything and the Libertarians aren't much bigger. However, I believe that the Conservatives plus the Objectivists plus the Libertarians could form a majority to change our government and the course of history. Their common ground is on all of the things that our government should be if they set aside the social issues that are not really a legitimate function of our government in the first place.

Should this happen, I also believe that a large number of people that have sided with the left would also come into this camp because they are not statists but were driven to the left by social issues. Gays, abortion rights groups, legal marijuana groups, international non-interventionists etc.

This, I believe, falls in making an adjustment of conflicting claims to achieve a value. The fundamental principle is individual rights and governments single goal of protecting them. The compromise, of course, has to be that the religious basis of altruism must be kept our of government just like our founding fathers tried to do. If we wait for the conversion of the believers we will definitely see the day when Atlas Shruggs.

Well if THAT were possible..where's the compromise come in? THEY would have to compromise and give up their wild spending, entitlement glut, over regulations, and freedom grabs. I'm all in favor of THEM compromising their illogical feel good crap. :)

Fair call :-)

I was more referring to the part in the original post regarding "a possible coalition with groups on the right". As in, if they agree on the principles of individual rights, personal responsibility, and fiscal restraint, then perhaps a mutually beneficial compromise might be reached.

But yeah, I get your point. Please don't beat me up ;-)

Agreed.

This isn't a marriage....this is a movie adaptation of a book about principles, logic, reason, and individual rights.

Well, in terms of *basic principles* you're right:

"There can be no compromise on basic principles. There can be no compromise on moral issues. There can be no compromise on matters of knowledge, of truth, of rational conviction."

"Contrary to the fanatical belief of its advocates, compromise [on basic principles] does not satisfy, but dissatisfies everybody; it does not lead to general fulfillment, but to general frustration; those who try to be all things to all men, end up by not being anything to anyone. And more: the partial victory of an unjust claim, encourages the claimant to try further; the partial defeat of a just claim, discourages and paralyzes the victim."

BUT...

"A compromise is an adjustment of conflicting claims by mutual concessions. This means that both parties to a compromise have some valid claim and some value to offer each other. And this means that both parties agree upon some fundamental principle which serves as a base for their deal."

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/compro...

I'm a zealot?

"...because Ayn didn't want it to be. End of story. "

Spoken like a true religious zealot.

She left it unspoken because what was unsaid spoke volumes, to the right people. WE are no longer dealing with the "right" people. "We" (those of Galt's Gulch) are now attempting to bring those outsiders into the fold. And to do so we must first make them realize that they are outsiders. To do this we must first make them realize they (the religious fanatics) are the outsiders by portraying to "them" how decisions can be made outside of GOD's influence. Mind you I realize this was never verbalized in Ayn Rand's books, but remember she was first most an author, not a philosopher. Some topics she literally did not have time on this earth to address and left up to "us" to finalize "HER" legacy.

The movie should stay true to the book. There's a reason it wasn't in the book...because Ayn didn't want it to be. End of story. Why would the masses question it in the first place? Does every movie with a difficult situation involve religion reflection...or a Priest visit? And if that is a question that they were to have...then they CAN READ THE BOOK AND FIND OUT WHY SHE DIDN'T.

...And do you think the masses who have never read any of Rand's works will understand this (why Dagny would NEVER seek out religion). The movies are meant to be a means to reach those the books never have and potentially bring them into the fold (I.E. actually read the books!)

this will take awhile to slog through, but here is another take
http://objectivish.blogspot.mx/

I am going to point up any articles you find on this because this is so wrong

Hell no. I read it, and I am AMAZED. Once a texas oilman offered AR a million to put an element of religion in AS. She said no. I will leave this site so fast if the producers decide to include this-

It may be a major factor in the world (some very evil in fact), but it wasn't a major factor in the story. It wasn't in the book. She was not swayed to seek religious insight she came to her own realization by herself. Religion should indeed be ignored in Atlas III as it was in the book, other than referring to the mystics and how illogical it is. YOU are folly.

I will not watch the movie if this perversion is in there. and I will exert ALL my influence to tell everyone else not to watch it. that is not the story and that is not Ayn Rand

I think we should all remember the world that we live in. Religion is, like it or not, a major factor in the world. It, at least in part, represents the needs for introspection, an understanding of who we are and what we are here on this Earth to accomplish. To make a movie and completely ignore religion would be folly. Instead, as this article suggests, it is good for the audience to see that in a moment of weakness, while pondering some of the most controversial issues a person can, one may be swayed to seek religious insight, yet in the end Dagny realized despite all "fancies," one must face the reality of this world as it is.