Fore more urdu books visit www.4Urdu.com

More oxford books @ www.OxfordeBook.comFore more urdu books visit www.4Urdu.comTHE REAL ROOT OF EVIL 129had struck at a foundational difference between the two. Rand, not usuallyone to avoid an argument, did not press the point because Patersonwas one of her most valued friends. In New York the two reached somesort of truce. As Rand described it to a fan, she had “an understanding. . . with all [her] friends” that she would not respond to letters whenin an intense period of writing. 78 For two years she and Paterson stayedin touch over the telephone instead, until meeting again in person whenRand came east another time.When their correspondence resumed in early 1948 it was marked bythe same personal warmth and the same intellectual antagonism overreligion. Rand still considered Paterson a valuable teacher, heedingher advice about deleting adjectives from her writing. She was writingsteadily now and generously identified Paterson as part of the inspirationfor her latest burst of creativity. Paterson responded with more NewYork gossip, including a tidbit about Don Levine’s bizarre new conceptof competing government agencies. It was the first glimmer of anarcho-capitalism,Rand’s bête noire in the years ahead. But now Levine’sstrange views simply signaled to both Rand and Paterson that his newestventure was not worth supporting.After more chitchat about current events Rand made a fatal slip, askingPaterson what she thought of the latest Fulton Sheen book. Sheen,soon to be ordained bishop of New York, was a prolific Catholic author.His latest book, the anti-Communist volume Communism and theConscience of the West, had been sent to Rand from their shared publisher.Paterson brushed off Sheen as “not worth your time,” but Randpursued the point in a second letter, telling Paterson, “something awfulseems to be happening to the Catholic thinkers.” What concernedher was that Catholic thinkers like Sheen, long known for their anti-Communism, now appeared to be “turning quite deliberately towardStatism.” 79 This drew forth a longer response from Paterson, in whichshe attempted to explain why Catholicism supported state action. Randresponded with outrage—not at Paterson, but at Catholic theology. Andthe battle was joined.Although Paterson was not Catholic, she couldn’t stand Rand’s dismissiveattitude toward religion. Sufficiently angered, she became cuttingtoward Rand’s intellectual abilities. “You ought to get your creedsstraight,” she wrote, telling Rand she misunderstood the concepts of