Then you need to read more Rand, or you didn't understand what you read. She not only covers those points when she speaks of ethics, but agrees with you, given certain reasons and exceptions. There is no reason for your objections if you really know Objectivism. All I would say at this point is that you'd get a different perspective on altruism, and morality is not God-given, but the rational way to exist. Plus one must define what is moral and what is not, which she makes very clear.

In my opinion, no. Religion = mysticism, or a belief in the supernatural. Even the cargo cult in the Pacific Islands believed in our everyday manufactured goods, but delivered to the islanders by gods.

You realize, of course, that I am not talking about history or even current events. What you say is true, but not the point. What I'd like to find out is what those who profess religion and still follow the principles of Objectivism have to say. Plus, I wouldn't object to such persons if their religions are not of the type you describe.

Excellent observation.
Therefore, we cannot reject religionists out of hand until we know something about them, which will become evident through their posting.

In a nutshell, morality and altruism. I believe that there are God-given moralistic sets of laws/rules/commandments. I also believe that it is our responsibility to help our fellow beings. This is not to say that we should enable self-defeating behavior.

Atheists and Agnostics often seem obsessed with proving they are "right," in that there is no deity. They seem to do so to the point of making a religion out of "non-religion." I am not a thoroughly versed "objectivist" or a thoroughly versed Christian (or religionist as Rand might prefer). I find no particular difficulty in believing philosophically in both.
At the heart of religion in the abstract is that religion is a set of rules. Those rules dictate two types of relationships: that which we have with God and that which we have with each other. If there is no God, then those rules and the resultant behaviors are harmless rituals. The rules for interacting with each other remain relevant.
I am reminded of the apparent battle "creationists" and "evolutionist" seem to insist on having. Creationism is a theory to explain how things came to be. Evolution is a theory to explain how things (that already exist) come to change Each deals with a different aspect of the universe. There is no inconsistency in believing in each

If no mysticism involved, is it a religion?

OK.
It would be interesting if you expressed the non-economic views of Objectivism that you disagree with. It might make for an interesting learning experience.

Religions spawn the root of all evils and as someone aptly pointed out, stifle evolution and even ensnare the investigation of the root causes of the universe. From Herb7734: "But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782. Theists (aka deists; and non-theists alike) pick my pockets all the time and force me to live for the sake of others. Did Jefferson overlook the thousands of broken legs from the Inquisition? Or today's wars of the religions? Isn't "moral obligation" an oxymoron? I see nothing consistent about claiming Objectivism as a personal philosophy and being a theist. I remain a student of Objectivism as I have been since 1964. And I interact with others on the basis of shared values.

Stake burning seems to be the way of ISIS and other primitives. As I have expressed earlier, my favorite is the Greek Goddess Eris, Goddess of chaos. I just love that pretty troublemaker. Plus, she gives you something (someone?) to blame everything on.

Roasting oxen on my lawn.
That's a good one.
Never heard that one before.
NOW I've heard all the arguments.
Uh, I think.
Anyone have something else as original?
Sock it to me! Sock it to me! It's sock it to me time.

Religion to me holds the universe together with chewing gum. However, I'm discovering people whose postings I admire defending their belief, but not that guy with the long white beard.

I agree.

The universe is full of mysteries. There are fewer of them since Einstein. There may be an intelligence in the universe but it isn't a guy as portrayed by Michelangelo.

Well, if your neighbors don't mind you roasting oxen on your lawn, why should I? I suppose you already know all the arguments against the fairy-tale stories, so I won't go into them. Personally, I have a group of friends, one of whom is very close to me who are born again types. They fit Objectivism in almost every other way, but I cannot call them true-blue Randoids.

Thank you for one of the best answers I have seen! Nuff said.

This must be where an allosaurus Latin defined "different lizard" like me:is supposed to get bashed again for saying I'm one of those oo ee yucky mystical statisticals here.
Well, nyah I don't care. Can't intimidate me by calling me a mystic either and I admire Kim Davis.
I view myself as a well-rounded peg that can punch through any trapezoid hole. One may argue that I can't but I just wrote that I can. So there.
I was "born again" during the 70s. Previously tried my best to be an unbeliever but there's just something about the details in the New Testament being so different than anything to be found in the writings of other religions. May have broken a rule with that last statement but I don't start such conversations here.
My faith really helped me get through 21 years as a state corrections officer. I'll never forget a very comforting feeling that suddenly flowed through me when I was on my back, struggling with an inmate over my baton and another baton that inmate took from another officer while other inmates were milling all around us.
I walked away from that without a scratch on me.
I could now kick off a sermon about the holy spirit but that's not allowed. I'm a rather salty believer anyway who'll say a naughty word in a heartbeat.
I never heard of Ayn Rand until the first AS flick came out. I'll hazard to say quite a few Christians have stumbled into the Gulch since then.
I've learned a lot here. But I don't want to be a carbon copy of Ayn Rand or anybody else.
I'm me! Me! Meeeeee!

I took Galt's oath when I was about 18 and have
maintained a genuine respect for some religious thought
since I was about 38. . honoring the unknown as a
majestic and mysterious reality which is worthy of
awe and appreciation, as a way of saying it. . like a
youngster looking up at the stars saying "WoW!" -- j
.

Hello Herb7734,
Indeed.
So we are. We could be in worse company. :)
Regards,
O.A.

yessir, the distinction is proselytizing. . keep your claws
offa my mind, they might say. . I agree. -- j
.

Unitarianism has an interesting history. Originally, it consisted of Christians who rejected the concept of the holy trinity as a form of polytheism. Later it became a sort of Deist belief system that accepted the validity of all theism as representative of God in various forms. That was also about the time it merged with the Universalist movement that proclaimed universal salvation (because a truly merciful God couldn't punish anyone). Within the last century, Unitarianism has morphed into a humanist, non-theist organization that I maintain no longer qualifies as a religion. Still doesn't disqualify a Unitarian from also being an Objectivist, nor make them a better one.

they entertained my questions about Christians
being welcome here, and about the "soul" ... it's good
for discussion and interchange, don't you think? -- j
.

objectivism is the philosophy;;; religion is the wild guess! -- j
.

I am happy with just not knowing if there is some mythical superior being out there, somewhere. I dont see any evidence that proves its existence. I see quite a bit of evidence that disputes the existence of some all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good being out there that we cannot understand, know, etc.

If adhering to a religion, and its accompanying "bible" of required beliefs makes some people feel better, its their business and not mine.

Perhaps there should be a website where people can construct their own "god" (like one constructs a burrito at chipotle), and assemble only the beliefs that the designer wants to include, along with ideas of "grace", "sin", "punishments for sin", and "methods of redeeming oneself". The website would give each god a name, and solicit members and contributions.

The most attractive "god" in terms of what it stood for and expected from people would expand its membership. Its time for competition among "gods", and not just a few big religions with conflicting tenets that are upsetting, supposedly handed down from centuries in the past.

Of course, this idea is politically incorrect, and I would probably be burned at the stake for promoting it.

Ok, I'll add my two farthings. First off, when it comes to man's (or in this case, woman's philosophy) there is no perfection. So, although I agree with Rand as to much of her economic theory, when we diverge from things strictly economic, I find myself diverging from her philosophy. Therefore, I guess I am not a strict objectivist. Second, the example used on her views of religion do not comport with the way I see the religion I practice.