David Domke, associate professor of communication at the University of Washington, is the author of "God Willing: Political Fundamentalism in the White House, the 'War on Terror' and the Echoing Press" (Pluto Press). He spoke to the Post-Gazette's Michael McGough.

QUESTION: Other presidents have invoked God in their public pronouncements. What makes George W. Bush unique?

ANSWER: What makes Bush different is that he often speaks as if he has a special communication with a higher power that allows him, Bush, to know what God wants for America. He speaks as if he's a prophet of God. By that I mean he regularly issues declarations of what he thinks God wants for America.

That's quite different than previous presidents who have spoken as if they were petitioners of God asking God for some wisdom or some blessing or some guidance or thanking God for blessing the nation. Bush speaks towards the future. That's the prophetic stance of saying what God wants for the future. And then he links it to American policies. That's where it becomes particularly dangerous.

Q: Let me press you a bit. In the book you quote a Southern Baptist leader as saying that Bush shares the evangelical Christian view that "we have a responsibility to help people experience the freedom that is their God-given right." But John F. Kennedy, who was not an evangelical Christian, said in his inaugural address that "the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God." What's the difference?

A: The difference is that that's an abstract statement by Kennedy and it's similar to the abstract statement in the Declaration of Independence. It isn't really challengeable -- nobody's concerned that God wants freedom for people. The issue is taking that abstract theological position and linking it to policy, and that doesn't happen in the Declaration of Independence and it didn't happen with Kennedy.

What Bush does is link these claims about what God wants with specific American policies. And he did it explicitly in the third presidential debate when he said that "I believe that God wants everybody to be free. That's what I believe, and that's been part of my foreign policy. In Afghanistan I believe that the freedom there is a gift from the Almighty. And I can't tell you how encouraged I am to see freedom on the march." That last statement -- "freedom on the march" -- is a clear reference to Iraq. He's done this in a way that I have not seen modern presidents do.

Q: You write that after Sept. 11, Bush's rhetoric about the war on terrorism being divinely ordained forced his political opponents into a position in which they were either with the Bush administration or against God. Given Bush's well-known religious views, did he have any other choice?

A: I think that he certainly could have done something different. He was known for his faith, but he hadn't quite worn it on his sleeve in the same way. He could have very powerfully and effectively left the God language out of the U.S. response. Had he left God out of the equation, people still would have assumed that he was responding out of a sense of his faith, but leaving God out would have been astute in terms of mobilizing global opinion.. But he didn't. In fact, he put God front and center.

He really began to put God front and center -- and this is what makes it very strategic on the administration's part -- when they made the move to Iraq. God was present in the language after 9/11, but Bush at that point didn't have to work hard to justify any of his policies. The public was with him, the international public was willing to go with him. So I would have liked to have seen him not quote Psalm 23 on the night of 9/11.

Q: You talk in the book about the news media echoing Bush's characterization of the war on terror as a battle between good and evil. Given that Sept. 11 was such a national trauma, even if Bush hadn't used religious rhetoric, wouldn't the nation have rallied around him?

A: Yes. I don't think that the God language was necessary at that time at all. The American public was more than happy to go with him and so were the news media. To me, he really capitalized upon this crisis to move a highly conservative brand of Christianity into the mainstream of American politics.

I've been asked, "What's wrong with that? He's a Christian person." What's wrong with that is that he is ethically and legally bound to represent people of all faiths and people of no religious faith. And when he as president of the United States moves that language to the front and center of a campaign against terrorism that involves Islamic militants on one side and he puts the Christian faith essentially on the other side, he has made a decision that to me is ethically undemocratic.

Q: Sen. John Kerry also invoked faith in his comments at the third debate. He said: "I went to a church school and I was taught that the two greatest commandments are: Love the Lord, your God, with your entire mind, your body and your soul, and love your neighbor as yourself. And frankly, I think we have a lot more loving of our neighbor to do in this country and on this planet." In the book you write that liberal Democrats need "to construct a resonant moral discourse of their own." Is Kerry doing that?

A: Very much so. I don't think it's because the Democrats read my book, I think it's because they know it's politically important. The American public overwhelmingly wants a president who has a religious faith. Three-quarters of Americas say this -- and that means a president who's Christian; let's be clear about this. So Kerry's inability to speak in a religious language, even though he seems to be genuine in his faith, has hurt him in this election.

I've tracked the positions of white Catholics, who are the second-largest voting bloc, in this campaign and they were with Kerry about even in the middle of summer, and now they're about 50-33 for Bush. I think that Kerry lost them because he really wasn't able to speak about God and he got off message in August and September. His language at the Democratic National Convention was good for him in terms of religious language, but then he lost that message responding to the Swift boat veterans. He has begun to recapture that late in his campaign because he must if he's going to win. Kerry also has been facing a lot of pressure and push from people on the left who are feeling that their faith has been hijacked.

Q: Is there a bright line between doing what you think Kerry ought to do -- which is to show that he has faith and is comfortable talking about moral issues -- and doing what you think Bush has gone overboard in doing? If someone's a first-time candidate and says, "How and to what extent should I talk about religion?" can you offer a handy formula?

A: All candidates running for president should be candid about how their faith is relevant in their lives, and I welcome that. My critique of the Bush administration is not rooted in any opposition to religion. I want to know where they stand, what they think and what they believe.

The issue is when they begin to move from statements about their own personal faith to statements about how that faith is the necessary determinant, or a necessary determinant, of any policy. I want a president who, if that individual is a person of faith, is going to use that faith to begin a necessary conversation about American policies. I'm concerned about a president whose faith, it appears, really closes down that conversation.