I think you're out of luck on that one. Any form of mysticism, which certainly includes religious as well as secular "faiths" (like socialism), is directly antithetical to Objectivist principle. However, you will never hear of an Objectivist coercing or doing anything other than persuading, although I would wager they'd have a couple of things to say about tax-exempt status for religious organizations while the rest of us are saddled with numerous immoral taxes. But I do think that that is a significantly more acceptable ally to religious folks than treasonous Republican moderates (Abortion is Fun!) or anything that the knee-jerk anti-religion liberals have to offer in that field...
voluntarily altruism
Just out of curiousity, have you read Atlas Shrugged? Just because the Objectivist view of what you call altruism is a lot more nuanced than they are given credit for; personal charity, given freely for the mere satisfaction it provides, is totally acceptable and virtuous (but because it is good for the giver). The problem comes when altruism becomes a mask for dishonestly selfish intentions (like, say, Democrat populism), which is really its most common incarnation, or when "altruism" ends up doing more harm than good to the recipient because of the independence that it inherently takes from them (ie the consequences of welfare-quite apart from the immorality of its source).
Basically, they conclude, quite rationally, I think, that all actions arise from self interest at some level. The different is between those with honest intentions that are open about their motivations, and those that pretend to be working exclusively for the "social good" or any of those other non-words.