captioning sponsored by macneil/lehrer productions >> lehrer: good evening. i'm jim lehrer. the rescue operation in chile for 33 trapped miners is under way. >> woodruff: and i'm judy woodruff. on the newshour tonight, we get the latest from the san jose mine. >> lehrer: then, marcia coyle takes us through today's supreme court arguments about whether vaccine makers can be sued. >> woodruff: special correspondent jeffrey kaye reports from pakistan on the challenges getting american aid to desperate flood victims. >> if we can get money and support to these communities, then the markets will come back and the whole economy will come back up. >> lehrer: we talk to juliet

eilperin of the "washington post" about the administration's decision to lift the deep water drilling moratorium. >> woodruff: ray suarez has a closer look at religious literacy in america. >> i do believe that you fear that which you do not know. you fear islam when you don't islam. you fear christianity when you don't know christianity. >> lehrer: and jeffrey brown talks to author jonathan franzen about his new novel, "freedom." that's all ahead on tonight's newshour. major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by:

this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting. and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. >> lehrer: those trapped miners in chile are coming to the surface after 69 days. rescuers began the operation late today with a custom-made capsule traveling roughly half a mile down a steel-lined tube to collect the first man. it's expected to take about 48 hours to get all of them out. we'll have more from the mine later in the program tonight but first the other news of the day. here's hari sreenivasan in our newsroom. >> sreenivasan: a federal judge in southern california ordered

the u.s. military today to stop enforcing its ban on openly gay troops. u.s. district judge virginia phillips issued a worldwide injunction against the policy known as "don't ask, don't tell." she had already declared the ban unconstitutional. the justice department has argued congress-- and not the courts-- should decide the issue. the department has 60 days to appeal. another nato soldier has been killed in southern afghanistan. it's the 28th fatality this month. elsewhere, insurgents fired a grenade into a nato helicopter, killing an interpreter. and a civilian cargo plane crashed near kabul, killing all seven people on board. there was no word on the cause. opening statements began today in the first civilian trial of a guantanamo detainee. ahmed khalfan ghailani is being tried in federal court in new york. he's charged in the bombings of two u.s. embassies in africa in 1998. 224 people were killed, including 12 americans. ghailani allegedly plotted the bombings with osama bin laden, and others. the judge has barred the government's top witness because

the c.i.a. used extreme interrogation methods on ghailani to get the name. more than a million people joined a nationwide strike across france today against pension reforms. they protested a move to raise the retirement age from 60 to 62 as part of broader cost-cutting moves. we have a report narrated by samira ahmed of independent television news. >> reporter: these pension reforms have already been passed by parliament, but the huge turnout for this latest strike in paris and in many other cities shows many people are still fighting the most radical changes to france's work and pension system for decades. students like these in paris closed and blockaded 50 schools and colleges across the country. >> people won't get jobs because companies will not want to employ people. even if they would it's the young people who don't be able to get jobs because there will be none left. >> i don't think it is going to change much, this strike.

we have to find a solution if we want to keep our pension system. so i think it's inevitable we'll have to do the same as other european countries and retire at 67. >> reporter: the trade unions still insist stopping the changes is possible. but president sarkozy has staked his legacy on seeing these pension reforms through. >> sreenivasan: french unions are planning another round of protests on saturday. internet giant google is expanding into the wind farm business, off the u.s. east coast. the company announced it is investing in a network of deepwater transmission lines, from virginia to new jersey. they would deliver energy from wind turbines as far as 20 miles offshore. the cost over ten years could reach $5 billion, and google will own more than a third of the project. wall street had another day of modest gains. the dow jones industrial average added 10 points to close above 11,020. the nasdaq rose 15 points to close near 2418. those are some of the day's major stories. now, back to jim. >> lehrer: the supreme court heard arguments today about legal protections for vaccine manufacturers.

the issue today was whether vaccine makers should continue to be shielded from most lawsuits for damages. the arguments involved 18-year- old hannah of mount lebanon, pennsylvania. her parents blame her neurological problems on a childhood vaccine. they want to sue wyeth labs which now owns the company that made the medicine. the national childhood vaccine injury act, passed by congress in 1986, established a no-fault system of compensation in such cases. the law set up a special vaccine court to confirm injuries and to award damages accordingly. the goal was to shield drug companies from repeated lawsuits and thereby guarantee steady supplies of vaccine. in recent years, hundreds of lawsuits have charged a link between childhood vaccines and autism. that means the case argued at the supreme court today could have far-reaching implications.

it also comes as broader questions about vaccines are very much in the public sphere. last month the centers for disease control found u.s. immunization rates for most common childhood vaccines remain near or above the target of 90% coverage. but some states, most notably california, have seen cases of whooping cough increase this year while vaccination rates have dropped. again here is marcia coyle of the "national law journal." marcia, welcome. >> hi, jim. >> lehrer: who brought this? which side brought this case to the supreme court? >> the family came to the supreme court after losing in the lower federal courts. jim, this is basically a battle over a specific type of lawsuit that the family would like to bring, a suit claiming that the vaccine was defectively designed. both sides, the family and wyeth, the vaccine maker, are looking at the same provision in

the federal law and reading it completely different ways. the family is saying that the provision allows them and other)

ms. sullivan said this was the exact kind of lawsuit that congress was worried about back in 1980s when vaccine makers faced an onslaught of personal injury suits resulting from vaccines. they enacted this law in order to bar this type of lawsuit. >> lehrer: this very thing, yeah. now, you mentioned what justice breyer said. how did the... there were only eight justices hearing this

case, right? explain why. >> that's true. justice kagan. >> lehrer: the new one. >> the newest justice. she recused and stepped out of the case because she was involved in the case when she was solicitor general of the united states. >> lehrer: representing the u.s. government. >> that's right. the united states here by the way has participated in this case. the obama administration is supporting wyeth laboratories saying that this lawsuit is barred. so there are eight justices. there could have been seven. the chief justice had recused himself. >> lehrer: john roberts. >> in the initial stages because he owns stock in wyeth. he sold the stock in order to participate now. eight justices isn't great because you can have a 4-4 split. son would be. >> lehrer: i was going to ask you about that. if it does go 4-4, wyeth wins, right? >> absolutely. the lower court judgment stands. >> reporter: okay. what happened in the courtroom today? >> okay. mr. frederick told justice breyer, for example, that vaccine makers aren't going to be chased from the market if

this type of lawsuit goes forward. he said that the vaccine court channels just about all the vaccine claims. 99% of those who go through the vaccine court accept what the vaccine court says about compensation. >> lehrer: they don't take it to another court. >> no, they don't. he said this type of lawsuit is very, very hard to prove. and those two factors, taken together, will not open... will not chase the vaccine makers out of the market. >> lehrer: what did the other justices say if anything that you thought was memorable. >> okay. justice ginsberg pressed wyeth's attorney, ms. sullivan, a couple times saying, well, you know, if congress had meant to block these lawsuits, it would have said so. but it didn't. >> lehrer: it wouldn't have left it ambiguous. >> exactly. there is a presumption that the court has applied over the years in these cases, a presumption against federal law preempting state law.

so she just felt that if congress wanted to preempt it, it would have said that clearly. justice kennedy said, well, you know, maybe... it was a sloppy drafting. congress doesn't always write clearly. ms. sullivan said, well, we could have written more clearly, but she still reads the provision to block this type of lawsuit. justice society meyer raised some concerns here. she seemed somewhat sympathetic to the family here feeling that if you don't have, say, these state lawsuits on defective designs, what is there to encourage vaccine makers to come forward when there are problems with the vaccine? who is policing this? she tried several times to find out what's the role of the f.d.a.? what's the role of the centers for disease control? >> lehrer: so, final word here then, it's a coin toss. you couldn't tell? you're not making any predictions on this one. >> i rarely do. >> lehrer: i know. >> i think this one is close.

and these pre-exemption cases, we have four this term, often split 5-4. so it will be very close. >> lehrer: and if... whichever way it goes, it's going to have a huge impact. is it not? >> it does. there is a real trade-off here. if the family wins, vaccine makers will be sued in state courts and face potential liability that could tie them up for years. it could be costly. it could be disincentives to research and development. but if wyeth wins families like this one whose children have suffered significant or catastrophic injuries will have no remedy. >> lehrer: okay. that's more than a coin toss. >> that's true. another thing, too. you mentioned in your set-up here that autism cases. ms. sullivan pointed out that there are 5,000 autism vaccine- related cases now in the

vaccine court. she raised the possibility that depending on how the court rules, that could open another avenue for vaccine makers to be sued. >> lehrer: a big deal. we'll have a decision probably in the summertime. >> probably by june. >> lehrer: marcia, thank you. >> my pleasure. >> woodruff: next the united states' effort to aid flood victims in pakistan's swat valley. we have a report from special correspondent jeffrey kay. >> reporter: when massive floods struck pakistan more than two months ago, the u.s. government promised to be the first with the most assistance. as the scope of the disaster spread to affect some 20 million people, u.s. officials held to their pledge seeing not only a critical need but the opportunity to win hearts and minds in a country where, according to a recent survey, 59% of the population

described the u.s. as an enemy. as waters recede in northern pakistan in the swat valley, the u.s. army is flying helicopter missions to isolated areas. delivering food and supplies and evacuating residents. the danger here is palpable. until about a year ago, this was a taliban strong hold. lieutenant colonel john knight's death as a chinook helicopter pilot who also commands the air relief task force. >> there's been no threat and i know in the past swat has had some issues and troubles and they had a real extensive fight a couple years back. and the military went in by force and they stayed there. >> reporter: the u.s. helicopter runs are closely guarded by the pakistani military. the landing sites have rings of security so soldiers are in these mountains surrounding the site. they've also set up perimeters

much closer in. aide workers and evacuees have to pass layers of pakistani security checks to even get near the helicopters. while the u.s. has provided humanitarian assistance, american air power is also a source of tension between the u.s. and pakistan. while these helicopters are saving lives elsewhere along the border with afghanistan, american helicopters recently killed three pakistani border soldiers leading to the temporary closure of a key supply route. besides flying in food, u.s. helicopters are also transporting building supplies for winter shelter. at the same time, it is evacuating residents who need to leave the area. a process that can lead to tense moments as soldiers decide who can go and when.

on return flights, u.s. aide choppers turn into delivery vehicles making sure that farmers get their vegetables to market. >> we are providing limited commerce out. that's really to keep the economic viability within that area too. if we are just to let that commerce sit there and rot, as you notice there was no truck moving along the roads today. the only way that commerce and that agriculture will get out is if we can get it out. that's their livelihood nor the next year. >> reporter: the direct delivery of u.s. aid is the exception, not the rule. even though the u.s. is the largest single aid donor for pakistan flood relief, it outsources the distribution of assistance. >> mainly we work through international organizations through non-governmental organizations that are on the ground, know the place. >> reporter: william burger of the state department's agency

for international development oversees america's pakistan relief efforts. we caught up with him monday as he toured u.s.-funded recovery operations in the northwest province of khyber, one of the country's worst his areas. he says a key goal of u.s. aid in addition to immediate relief is to help stimulate the economy. >> getting these people not just the food that they need to eat today but jobs, getting their livelihoods restored so that they'll be able to support themselves in the future and they'll be doing cash for work and food for work so there's money circulating in the economy so that all of the vendors will also survive and thrive, as a matter of fact, you noticed as we came in that the markets, these markets have returned very quickly. this is a very resilient and entrepreneurial people. if we can get money and support to these communities,

then the markets will come back and the whole economy will come back up. >> reporter: in the village, there were only 80% of the houses damaged. the economy was devastated as flood waters killed livestock and ravished crops. this farmer supports a family of nine. his sugar cane crop was wiped out by diseases and infested with bugs. >> the land is completely filled with silt and mud. i don't think i will be able to plant a winter crop so my family will not have food. my livelihood has completely collapsed. i will work in the village and get the food sponsored by the people of america. i'm very thankful for that and hope it can be continued in the future until we recover. >> reporter: despite his enthusiasm for us aid, some humanitarian groups believe advertising their u.s. connections in areas where

extremists are active will pu them in harm's way. one veteran aide official in pakistan who askd us not to use his name said militants have stated that they will target american-supported relief efforts. the question is how much risk should u.s.-aid partners absorb to make sure that the u.s. gets credit? but the head of pakistan-based humanitarian organization doesn't share that concern. he works with the u.n.'s world food program to distribute u.s. finance assistance. >> we are giving... the u.s.-aid logo is on it. it is getting to every home. people are taking it. people are thankful. that's what i think. i mean, i don't see any resistance in that regard. >> reporter: the u.s.a.i.d.has strict labeling and marketing requirements for programs it

funds, but the agency's burger says it can waive those requirements on a case-by-case basis. burger himself is well aware of the security risks of a public profile. officials are required to travel with armed escort, limiting their ability to assess their own projects. one involves reconstruction of schools in the village. schools were destroyed by mud and water. with the help of the u.s. finance food-for-work program, a boys' school is now back in session. a girls' school is next in line for repair. burger says the goal of disaster relief is humanitarian rather than political. >> we're focused on getting these people's lives restored and doing development. i think if we do that well it will be appreciated. getting people's lives back together and the humanitarian operation.

it's a little too early to make judgments about the impressions that people will have. it's a long-term process. the united states is committed to helping pakistan for many years to come. >> reporter: even before the floods, the u.s. committed to a five-year $7.5 billion aide package for pakistan. seeing development assistance and now disaster relief as critical components in shoring up a troubled ally. >> woodruff: now, ending the ban on deep water drilling for oil. we start with some background. the u.s. department of interior lifted the freeze on deep-water oil drilling in the gulf of mexico a month early. it was imposed in may after the april 20th blow-out of b.p.'s deep water horizon well. in a conference call today interior secretary ken salazar

said the policy position that we are articulating today is that we are open for business. operators who play by the rules and clear the higher bar can be allowed to resume. the oil industry and gulf coast officials had pressed to lift the ban. they argued it costs thousands of jobs and damaged the regional economy. but white house press secretary robert gibbs denied today that political pressure played a role. he said the decision flowed naturally out of a series of public meetings. >> this was part of a very deliberative policy process that quite frankly just got done more quickly than the original time line. >> woodruff: the announcement also came as a federal judge was considering a new legal challenge to the moratorium. the ban is now lifted immediately, but it could be weeks before any drilling resumes.

>> woodruff: and we turn now to "washington post" national environmental reporter juliet eilperin, who's been covering the story for the paper. thank you for being with us. >> thank you. >> woodruff: what is the new information that the administration has that has caused them to lift this ban? >> the administration has a few different components that they think make them more comfortable about allowing deep water drilling in the gulf. one of them is that they've imposed new safety, workplace safety as well as drilling rules that will basically require tougher inspections of key components as well as more detailed elaboration by oil and gas companies about what they do in an event of a spill. another factor that interior secretary ken salazar outlined is the fact that one of their concerns for a long time was they didn't want to have other new deep water drilling going on while they were coping with the ongoing b.p. blow-out. on the concern that they wouldn't be able to respond to two at once. he noted of course they capped the well in july and then declared it dead, you know, more than a month ago.

so on those grounds they felt comfortable going forward. >> woodruff: when interior secretary salazar says that he thinks they've made progress in reducing the risks, is that what he's talking about? >> well, he's talking about a few factors. he's primarily saying that we are now asking oil and gas companies to prove that they have more comprehensive practices in terms of their well design, their testing of the blow-out preventer, what kind of casing they're using, that this will be independently verified by a third party inspection and then federal regulators will also look at it. so essentially both the tougher requirements and a stricter enforcement system. >> woodruff: none of these things were in place before. >> no, there wasn't a third- party verification of many of these key components. of course they were really strapped in terms of inspectors. they have brought in some additional federal inspectors from the pacific and from alaska, but even today michael

bromwich who heads the agency that overlooks drilling acknowledge that aren't as many inspectors on hand as they would like. >> woodruff: are the companies welcoming these new regulations? what are they saying about this? >> they are welcoming it. they're suggesting that they can meet the higher bar that secretary salazar referred to. they're also questioning, however, whether permitting will happen as quickly as indicated. you know, they're basically that we think we can meet these higher standards but we're concerned that we're not going to get the permission to go ahead as quickly as possible and there may be a de facto moratorium even if the formal federal ban on deep water drilling is lifted. >> woodruff: a de facto meaning because it's going to take a long time to get this approved? >> exactly. as you indicated, it certainly will be weeks before any new deep-water drilling commences in the gulf. and again it looks like we're talking about there will be some by the end of the year but it's entirely unclear how many federal permits for new deep-water drilling will be issued by that time.

>> woodruff: juliette, the administration said today i think white house press secretary robert gibbs said they didn't bow to political pressure. but what sort of pressure were they under? what were they hearing? from the drilling, from the companies, from the community? >> they were under tremendous pressure both from local and state and federal officials who hail from the gulf who said this was a huge problem in terms of jobs which obviously is something that is important when you have a run-up to critical congressional elections in november. they were also hearing from companies that this is really the main place that we still produce oil and gas for the united states. to cut back on drilling here really means that you're undermine ing what kind of domestic production we have in the united states. so there's no question there were economic and political factors that forced them to move as quickly as they could. but they say today that they're comfortable with this being open for business as salazar said. >> woodruff: has anyone been able to quantify just what the economic impact has been, how

many jobs have been put on hold because of this and so forth? >> you know, there are different estimates, but i think it's hard to provide a reliable estimate at this point because a lot of what we hear is, you know, from the oil and gas industry. so, i don't think that there's a number that everyone is comfortable using at this point although it is important to note that obviously a lot of the workers who have been idle can qualify for compensation from b.p. so in terms of the long-term economic loss i think a lot of that will depend on how quickly drillers can get back to business because that way they won't be forced to say relocate to other parts of the world for deep water drilling. >> woodruff: what about the environmental community, juliette? what are they saying about this? >> really they were uniformly negative about this decision. they essentially said there's not a question of if another spill will happen but when. and essentially i don't think there was a single environmental group i heard from who said that this was appropriate. they did some of them explicitly such as green peace

accuse the administration of catering to voters in the run-up to the november elections and so there certainly was a question that that community was not in favor of this or is not convinced that the precautions that are now in place are sufficient to prevent a future oil spill. >> woodruff: even these new regulations don't assuage their concerns. >> it did not. their feeling is that this... there still aren't enough precautions in place and that again the entire idea of whether we should be engaging in off-shore oil drilling should be something debated not under what conditions we do so. >> woodruff: all right. we are going to leave it there. juliette eilperin with the "washington post," thanks very much. >> thank you. >> lehrer: now back to the saga of the chilean miners and to geoffrey brown. jonathan, welcome. is it correct that the first step here is to send pair a

medics down the shaft to help the miners? and has that happened yet? >> no, i'm looking right now at the hole where the miners will be rescued from. it's about 50 meters away from me. there's quite a flurry of activity. bulldozers, two dozen helmeted men trying to get everything together. the first rescuer will be heading down there probably within the hour. >> brown: once they go down, what happens? how soon after is the expectation? well, what is the expectation right now about when miners would start coming up? >> it's been changing all day long. it would be a bit difficult to estimate. the schedule seems to change every time a drill bit breaks. i know that as recently as half an hour ago i saw the men fiddling trying to put together the last pieces on this capsule that will bring them up. i think it would be safe to say sometime in the next two or three hours this capsule will be going down and then coming up with a miner inside. >> brown: i gather there is some word about the order in

which they'll be coming up. who will come up first. tell us about who that is and why he was chosen as far as you know so far. >> he's a man who is both healthy and wise in the sense he'll be able to guide the miners up top about what worked well, what didn't work. he's actually able to give feedback. that's what they like about him. he's healthy enough that he won't have mental or physical problems. he's smart enough that explain what went right and what went wrong. number 2 will be a bow h.i.v.ian guy that was chosen in a very political way because the chileans and the bolivians don't usually get along. this is a way of the chileans saying we take you seriously. the bolivian president may or may not be here. i'm not sure if he showed up. it's very important for the chileans to show there's no prejudice against the bolivian miner.

>> brown: how confident are officials sounding? what kind of talk is there of potential contingencies if anything does go wrong in the process? >> about 99% this is going to work. 1% we hope it doesn't. >> brown: ex-... excuse me? 1% what? >> one percent that something could go wrong but 99% of all the talk here both official and unofficial of course this is will work. one percent is, yeah, there might be a problem. it's very unlikely. it seems to be a pretty safe and operation at this point. they've double and triple checked it for quite some time. >> brown: it's still a tough trip to get up to the top. tell us what these guys will have to go through in the capsule. >> there's more than a dozen curves. people are under the impression that this is a separate shot. that's not true. this is more like a ride you might do at a carnival or something. it's really quite remarkable. they will be twisting and turning at a speed of 2.5 meters per second. even the rescue worker i just

spoke to said they go dizzy and a bit nauseous. it's not a straight shot. it's a bit of a bizarre ride. they'll be strapped in there pretty tightly. >> brown: what's the latest about the conditions, the preparations, the attitudes of the miners as they prepare to do this? >> the miners are very prepared for this. they've been having a hard time sleeping. i spoke to one of the miners this morning. i'm the first report er to have spoken to any of the reporters down there. he was quite confident. he said this is, in so many words, he said this is a chapter of our lives we never plan for and i hope we never have to live again. >> brown: in the meantime, jonathan, tell us about the scene where you are. the atmosphere, the anticipation at the site. >> i'm pretty high up on the hill. i'm the only reporter so far to actually be allowed on the rescue site. there's about 2,000 reporters corraled down at the bottom of the hill. they all want... they all wonder why i'm up here hundreds of yards away. i'm standing on a pile of rocks looking right down on

the capsule. it's professional nervousness. these people know what they're doing. the chileans are very organized about this. it's the president is here. he's been planning for this for weeks. very highly organized. people have been working non-stop for weeks here. there's a lot of fatigue about to hit. >> brown: what is the plan as miners come to the surface? what happens to them? what's going to be done? >> they will be taking them to a tent and have them checked by doctors, make sure that their vital signs, that they're breathing okay, that they didn't get too scared. there will be a stabilization process that could take two hours. sometime during that period they will be able to be with family members. >> brown: i gather they'll be kept away from cameras and lights for the time being? >> yes. there's great concern about the pressure of facing the 2,000 very eager journalists. they've even put up some nets so that the press can't really film it very well. it's going to be difficult time for these miners in the sense that they're going to be

swarmed by press very soon. not maybe today or tomorrow but soon after. >> brown: jonathan franklin, thanks very much. >> you're welcome. >> lehrer: understanding the religious beliefs of other people. ray suarez looks at why that matters in a country as diverse as ours. his report was produced in collaboration with the pbs series "god in america." >> suarez: the united states continues to be the most religious of the wealthye industrial democracies. in four centuries religion has played a central role in american life. even as the religious marketplace has grown steadily more diverse. in conjunction with god in america producers, the pew forum on religion in public life surveyed americans' religious literacy. it revealed that most americans lack a basic

knowledge of religion, their own and their neighbors'. pew asked 32 questions about religious belief and religious history. the average person got just 16 answers right. just half. of the 3400 people who took the test, just 8 got all the answers right. about 70% knew jesus was born in bethlehem. about only 47% knew the dalai lama is a buddhist. just over half could identify the koran as the holy book of islam. at a panel sponsored by pew and the producers of "god in america," i asked boston university professor and religious literacy advocate, so what? why does it matter? what would change if people knew more about, let's say, islam? >> the question is, how can americans understand the world, act in it economically, politically and militarily without knowing something about the world's religions? i think it's very easy to look at a particular question and

dismiss it and say, well, what does that really indicate? but i think these kinds of simple questions indicate the deficit that we have as a country in understanding the religions of the world and our own religions. it handicaps us to act as informed citizens as we're supposed to in the democracy that we live in. i think it matters a lot. >> suarez: the pew survey found 80% of respondents know mother teresa was a catholic but only 8% know the great jewish theologian was jewish. >> i'm a christian by choice. >> suarez: and repeated national polls show as many as one in five americans say the president is a muslim. in a recent visit to albuquerque president obama was asked again to explain his religious background. >> as president of the united states, i'm also somebody who deeply believes that the... part of the bedrock strength of this country is that it embraces people of many faiths.

and their own path, the grace, is one that we have to revere and respect as much as our own. that's part of what makes this country what it is. >> suarez: religious conflict and controversy is as old as this country. "god in america" tells of historic tensions between protestant and newly arrived catholics, between traditional and modernizing american jews, immigration has steadily grown the numbers of american muslims and brought new conflict. this summer controversy royaled over the so-called ground zero mosque, the plan to build an islamic cultural center in an empty building in lower manhattan blocks from the world trade center site. the protests against the proposed building took a decidedly anti-islamic tone. >> islam is a religion that does not give freedom to anyone. >> we come together at a time of great crisis and danger.

>> suarez: the man behind the would-be islamic center had to defend both his plans and his faith. >> let there be no mistake, ladies and gentlemen. islam categorically rejects the killing of innocent people. terrorists violate the sanctityy of human life and corrupt the meaning of our faith. in no way do they represent our religion, and we must not let them define us. >> you know, i dare to say that the majority of americans do not know a lot about islam. >> reporter: this imam is a chaplain at georgetown university. >> if they know something it's something negative. that does not represent the faith that we teach in our mosques or that is written in books. however, more people know about islam now than ten years ago. because of what happened on september 11, because of the ground zero islamic center, because of the burning of the

koran crisis. >> suarez: a florida pastor tried to make the anniversary of the terrorist attacks on new york and washington international "burn a koran day." some of the most powerful people in the country contended the lack of understanding has a cost. the general runing the war in afghanistan counted that cost in human lives. >> we're very concerned about the implications of a possible koran burning in the united states. it puts our soldiers in jeopardy very likely. we've already seen a demonstration here in kabul just at the rumor that this event could take place. >> suarez: in the end pastor terry jones didn't burn any books. >> of course, muslims do not want us to burn the koran. >> suarez: "time" magazine recently asked, is america islam phobic? the justice department is looking into arsons and vandalism of mosques. new mosques in other places in the country have drawn opposition and protest.

>> we don't want a mosque here? >> no. >> i do believe that you fear that which you do not know. you fear islam when you don't know islam. you fear christianity when you don't know christianity. i believe that the best way to sort of counter this wave of ignorance about islam or any other religion as a matter of fact is education. the availability of data in churches, in synagogues, in mosques, on tv screens but also in our schools and universities. >> suarez: schools are an obvious place to push back against religious ignorance. these teens will be adults in a far more religiously diverse america than their parents grew up in. >> god has a face, right? giving god personality. seeing him as a personal god. >> suarez: at this high school in virginia class on world religions is in its 15th year under teacher kathy wildman. from august to june these teens will get a grounding in the history, structure, and

beliefs of the world's religions. why is it important for an 18-year-old to have at least a familiarity with the religions of the world? >> because we're going to send that 18-year-old out in the world and ask them to make decisions in a democracy. we're going to ask them to fight maybe. we're going to ask them to participate in a increasingly global society. how do they understand the people they're working with? how do they understand the other if they haven't learned about the views of the other? >> suarez: the pew poll found americans believe it's much harder to teach comparative religion in public schools than it really is. i wanted to talk to you, paul, about why you're talking this class. >> the class kind of tells you things you've always wondered and gives you a different idea of what's out there. >> in the world today, you know, religion is a big part of it. we have wars over religion. i just think it's important that we're informed about it and so it's a necessary step

towards tolerance. >> suarez: americans are still wrestling with the idea that today millions of residents are muslims. it's not the first time a new group of believers has gotten a mixed welcome. at a recent town hall meeting abc news asked if islam is to be feared. the rev. franklin gram was one of the panelists. >> i don't believe in islam. i don't believe a word of it. i do respect their right to believe whatever they want to believe. but i disagree with the sharia law because they do stone women. they do imprison... i've worked in the sudan where they've burned over a thousand churches. >> who is they? >> i think muslims have to have a proactive agenda. an aend that... an agenda that forces muslims to pay the money and do what it requires to reach out to the rest of america with the right message

of islam. that's number one. number two, muslims who give islam a bad name need to reform and need to change. america will change the way it perceives islam. >> suarez: this imam said islam now has america's attention mostly for bad reasons but that attention can turn into knowledge, he says. that knowledge into understanding. >> lehrer: "god in america" airs tonight and continues tomorrow on most pbs stations. >> woodruff: finally tonight, when jonathan franzen's new novel was released this fall. "time" magazine put him on its cover with the headline "great american novelist"-- hardly the norm for a writer these days, and he and the novel have generated much discussion since. jeffrey brown talked to franzen recently. >> brown: they are seemingly well adjusted and well off middle class midwest family. as we learn very quickly there had been something not quite

right about them. the disintegration of their lives and a very fractured and unsettled post 9/11 america is told in freedom the new novel by jonathan franzen. his last novel won the 2001 national book award. welcome to you. >> nice to be here. >> brown: i've read where you said this started with a desire to write about your own parents' experience but you wanted to set it in our own time. >> i can't imagine seting the book in the past. there's something about the present that is so present. and pushes on my own consciousness so much and creates so many anxieties that i'm always looking for a way to move things into the now if i can. so i had to make my parents my age rather than their age and this is what you get. >> brown: there's something partly a very familiar family story. >> yeah. the details are different but the personality types was what i was after. and then particularly also they have a son whose relation

to the parents is in some ways comparable to my own. the bhol thing was just shifts a whole generation forward. i was able... so i had to imagine my way into what i would have been like if i had been 19 now. >> brown: i'm curious where this sort of starts because the corrections was also a family story. i've seen you talk about or read you talk about the idea of going from childhood into adulthood and the disconnections there. >> family is how i make sense of the world. i had a very powerful experience of it. these really giant figures in my life. i was this little kid. i had two older brothers and these powerful and often clashing parents. every novel i've written-- it's been four novels-- i've tried to draw on the energy of those intense family relations to power a book. >> brown: and then you set them in a contemporary society.

the corrections came out just before 9/11, right? >> days before, yes. >> brown: days before. now you've set the next novel among this world of post 9/11. >> i seem to be on a cycle of producing novels similar to the cycle of american presidential administrations. so i had a reagan novel. i had a bush one novel. then i had a clinton novel. this would be sort of the bush years. in a sense it goes right up to the president. i'm not writing for people in 200 years. i'm trying to create books that the people can connect with based on the experiences they're having right now. >> brown: but it's interesting when you tie them to a presidency because a lot of the talk your work generates a lot of discussion about, you know, the big novel, the social novel. do you think of yourself as trying to express something about our times? >> that's not the point. the point is to try to create a compelling experience that the largest number of people

possible can interact with, relate to, get lost in. and the fact that it can be taken as a certain kind of portrait of the time is almost an artifact of that. it's not the goal. you know, tv does what the social novel used to do. so it's not... you don't need me to tell you what's going on in the country. we're bombarded with all that 24/7. what we need is an intense experience that takes us away from that but is still informed by all of that bombardment. >> brown: tv does some of that. the movies do something that novels used to do. i mention that because some of your characters even refer to "war and peace." you know, in thinking about how we live or lives, how grand of a scale, and how grand the story telling is. >> well, war and peace was admittedly a model because i think reading that novel is an experience everyone who can

read should have at some point in their life. to have a book that is not so short that it's over in an evening. that something that becomes part of your life for a series of days and that you just don't want to have end. that's really the goal. again that's all with the view to pushing back against this electronic culture of tiny little bits of information bombarding you and gratifying you every five seconds. it is a model, and the 19th century novels in general are a model of a different kind of time, of thinking and feeling in a somewhat slower but hopefully more intense way. >> brown: very few novelists in our age get the kind of attention. there's the "time" magazine. great american novelist idea. there's the wild phrase. that generates a sort of back lash that i've seen over the

last couple of months. why him? why so much attention? >> i don't feel the weight of that. i feel an almost impersonal happiness to see any novel getting that kind of attention because there was... i have the feeling at many points in the last decade 15 years that we've seen the last of that possibility for the novel in this country. but when i was growing up, you know, you looked and you would see hemingway's picture on the cover of life magazine and you'd see steinbach traveling the world and being some kind of representative for the country. it's nice personally for me to be the one in that position, but i think i would be happy even if it were someone else just to see the novel throwing its weight around. the way it once did and apparently still can. >> brown: i ask this because we've talked to many people here about the future of the book in the age of the e-book

and twitter, et cetera. all the things you've just been talking about. do you fear for the future of the novel? >> not so much. i think the more intense that world gets, the more the novel has the capacity to be that which is a relief from that. that which is an alternative to that. that's been the great happy surprise for me in the last decade both with the corrections and now with freedom to see that there iscy surprisingly a great hunger for something that is not that instant culture that's for something that is a little bit more interior. >> brown: all right. the novel is freedom. jonathan franzen, thank you very much. >> a pleasure, jeff, thanks. >> lehrer: again, the major developments of the day. rescuers in chile began the operation to bring 33 trapped miners to the surface after 69

days underground. a federal judge in southern california issued a worldwide injunction against enforcing the military's ban on openly gay soldiers. and the u.s. supreme court heard arguments on whether to allow lawsuits over vaccines that harm children. and to hari sreenivasan in our newsroom, for what's on the newshour online. hari? >> sreenivasan: jonathan franzen reads a selection from his new book. that's on art beat. find out more about the rescue of the chilean miners. we have a graphic showing the steps involved in bringing them to the surface. read jeffrey kaye's blog post from pakistan about his reporting trip there. plus, see a newly released satellite image of the toxic sludge spill in hungary. all that and more is on our web site, newshour.pbs.org. judy? >> woodruff: and that's the newshour for tonight. on wednesday, we'll have an update on the rescue of 33 miners in chile. i'm judy woodruff. >> lehrer: and i'm jim lehrer. we'll see you online, and again

here tomorrow evening. thank you, and good night. major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by:

captioning sponsored by macneil/lehrer productions captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org