This is not going to be what you expect.
From the title, I believe, and intend, that you should anticipate an apology for a statement I made. But, that is not what this post is about.

There exist, however, reasons for me to offer an apology.

I'm making a statement here. Believe it or not, question its veracity or accept it as stated. This is not a question for debate, and I will not engage in debate regarding it.

That some of my comments are vulgar and/or coarse is true. I won't apologize for it. I live, and have had to live, in a society where elegant expressions of intricate thought are met with dull stares and open jaws.

While many things offend me which do not offend others, there are some things which elicit a visceral reaction. I have, of late, allowed my outrage to not only color my reaction, but to spill over into a general hostility.

For this, I apologize.

One of the things which elicits outrage is when I detect someone attempting to have his cake and eat it, too. Even when that someone is me.
An example would be earlier today, when I read Mary Katherine Hamm's tweet cheering-on the U.S. female hockey team. She referred to them as "lady hockey players". In my view, this is an outrageous oxymoron. All I could do, however, was sit and scream silently to myself, as modern society is too indoctrinated to ignore this, to me, obvious contradiction in terms, and would reflexively consider any disagreement or correction as ad hominem attack against Mary Katherine, or women in general.

I will not discuss the matter further. Simply accept that I find it enraging.

I associate atheism with socialism, for obvious reasons. So when self-proclaimed atheists attack Christianity, and fail to launch similar or inclusive attacks against other religious philosophies, particularly when they are dismissive of the deeply held believes of good people, I feel outrage. This time, instead of silently screaming to myself, or using reasoned, rational arguments to drive the attackers into a rhetorical corner and destroy them, I reacted emotionally and allowed myself to vent undeserved hostility toward them.

dbhalling has proclaimed me a "religious nut". I won't comment on the veracity of this statement, as I feel confident that is how he views me. I also view him as a bigot.

Others have proclaimed that I "hate" the philosophy of Objectivism. Again, I won't comment on the veracity of this statement, as I can understand how some might come to that erroneous conclusion.

I consider myself a Christian; if that in itself is enough to label me "religious nut", then I must be. I like and agree with many of the teachings of Christianity; I do not belong to or attend any brick-and-mortar church, as I don't feel I need some person or some institution coming between me and God, in effect telling me what to believe.

I do not consider myself an Objectivist; however I do like and agree with many aspects of Objectivism. I have found, however, something in common between some Objectivists and some devout "born again" Christians: arrogance and the need to feel superior to others. Both use their belief as a tool to intolerantly belittle the beliefs of others. Both exude the attitude that "I have the right answer, therefore you're stupid".

This also tends to bring out my bad side. But it doesn't excuse bad behavior. So for allowing myself to express hostility in this regard, I also apologize.

However, I do despise John Galt. Rhetorical question: is John Galt the central figure of Objectivism... or is Ayn Rand?

Before I gave much thought to Rand, I read the philosophical musings of Heinlein, Asimov, Pournelle and others. Among the ideas expressed, and I cannot find the source for this, was the difference between the liberal and conservative in regard to What Matters.
The liberal, so goes the argument, says that his intentions were good, and therefore the results of his action don't matter. The conservative, goes the counter-argument, says that what you do has consequences, and therefore the results of one's actions do matter.
In other words, to the liberal, if your intent is to feed the hungry, it doesn't matter that you impoverish or enslave others to do so, because you intend to do good. To the conservative, it doesn't matter that you intend to do good; your actions did harm, and you therefore bear responsibility for them.

John Galt was a remarkably persuasive speaker. When the Starnes heirs chose to reform the 20th century motor company, he didn't choose to use his persuasive powers to convince people to vote against it; he walked out.

He did not run for office and use his persuasive powers to restructure the political power base in the country; nor did he choose to take to the airwaves and print to sway popular opinion back toward a healthier, Objectivist culture. No, he chose to drop out, and then sabotage society, by using his persuasive powers to draw from society those upon whom the society was dependent, in order to force them to submit to the rule of his elites, however benevolent.

The result was millions impoverished, and/or dead. His indifference to the suffering his chosen course was bringing was no different in kind than that of any socialist tyrant to his victims. To him, the looters and moochers of the world, the millions of them, the 99%ers, deserved suffering and death. And he was the deserving agent of their destruction. For no better reason than he could.

Ragnar expressed equal arrogance, in taking it upon himself to steal and thereby return the wealth appropriated by the government. While his philosophical position on the matter may have been proper, like Galt he assumed he had the right to impose his will on others. Again, my actions don't matter, for my cause is just...

I do not like arrogance; it is the hallmark of the bully. Whether an intellectual bully like O'Reilly or dbhalling, or a physical bully. And I have a visceral outrage against bullies. I have likewise allowed this outrage to disperse into a general hostility toward those embracing their own view of Objectivism; for this I also apologize.

Any commentary I make in the future I intend to review before posting, judging it by the criteria of civility and reason. As a result, my commentary will become less colorful, less entertaining, less original, less insightful, and therefore, less inciteful. I am through butting my head up against a wall.

"
"No. I am complying with the law—to the letter. Your law holds that my life, my work and my property may be disposed of without my consent. Very well, you may now dispose of me without my participation in the matter. I will not play the part of defending myself, where no defense is possible, and I will not simulate the illusion of dealing with a tribunal of justice." "

" "I will not help you to pretend that I have a chance. I will not help you to preserve an appearance of righteousness where rights are not recognized. I will not help you to preserve an appearance of rationality by entering a debate in which a gun is the final argument..." "

I've no doubt this will be received with anything but further irrational hostility and expressed desires to control my words and thereby expression of my thoughts.

It is the collective view held here that my words and my ideas may be dictated to me without my consent. Very well. tell me what to say, and I will say it. I choose to be consistent and I will obey you in the manner you demand.