I'm certainly not saying I have all the answers, but as a Christian, I dare say that any weltanschauung that is not God centered is fatally flawed. Having said that, I would also contend that any human's perspective is, by definition imperfect. My biggest disagreement with Rand is in the nature of moral imperatives and our duties as human beings. Mine and many others are (as we envision them) defined by God, whereas those of Rand and others in her camp are defined by self.
It seems to me that the problem is that thinking about the role of government must necessarily be part of ones weltanschauung, and as long as people who are part of government want to take to themselves the responsibilities and characteristics of God, we end up with a lot of dirty business.
Just look at Obama, who not only thinks of himself as god-like, but who has succeeded in convincing a lot of third parties that he's god-like, as well.
I read almost every word Ayn Rand wrote for public consumption when I was in my twenties. I have always been a believing Christian, as well. Ayn Rand didn't believe in God because she hadn't invented Him as part of her philosophical framework. She had not "derived Him from first principles" as it were.
Personally, I don't see that much of a problem with Objectivism and Chritianity, but then I have recourse to the rather personalized rationalization/apologia I described in #49. Whether any other Objectivists - or Christians, for that matter - would take my theory seriously is highly dubious I'm sure.