David Brooks deplores the moral relativism of secularist thought and thinks that a little God in politics is not necessarily a bad thing. To bolster his argument, he recounts an anecdote in today’s New York Times about Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln reportedly told his cabinet that he signed the Emancipation Proclamation because he had made a bargain with God; he would sign it if God delivered a victory at Antietam. Brooks thinks that this decision demonstrates the salubrious effects of faith-guided thinking.

Do you know what I think is morally relativist? A politician who bases key decisions on chance events, rather than analyzing the issue and doing what he knows to be morally right.

Do you know what else I think is morally suspect? A politician who hides the real reasons behind a policy decision while providing a justification he thinks will be more palatable to the public.

Come on, David Brooks. Stop trying to push our liberal buttons by invoking the emancipation of slaves as a triumph of religion. Have you lost it? The only way you could believe this story illustrates your point is if you believe God really intervened at Antietam. And if you believe that, then why not base policy solely on the results of various tests of God’s will?

I know — “American Idol” is already in place. Why don’t we assign each contestant a positive or negative outcome related to some important public policy question, and then make decisions based on the winner of each round? If Anthony stays, we’ll support gay marriage. If Anwar stays, we’ll gut Social Security. If Bo stays, we’ll overturn Roe v. Wade.

Of course, if you accept the whole notion of litmus tests for God then you have to be prepared to differentiate between the legitimate and the bogus ones. You can just imagine all kinds of people coming out of the woodwork claiming that God told them to eradicate some ethnic minority or overthrow some government. We’ll need some kind of framework for sorting out the true God-fearing from the opportunists. Is this the kind of slippery slope we want to tackle?

Then again, David Brooks thinks that I’m poised on a slippery moral slope because my husband and I have separate checking accounts.

Brooks writes, “One lesson we can learn from Lincoln is that there is no one vocabulary we can use to settle great issues. There is the secular vocabulary and the sacred vocabulary. Whether the A.C.L.U. likes it or not, both are legitimate parts of the discussion.” Mr. Brooks? That voice in your head that tells you that slavery is wrong? That is Reason, sir. As secular as it gets. The voice in your head that identifies itself as God, revealing His intentions to you personally? That’s a “vocabulary” we don’t need to settle great issues.