This is an excellent approach to dealing with this fraudulent BS, but there's still a gaping hole in the law, one that's incredibly difficult to close.
For example, the New York licensure law for people providing psychological counseling services includes a glaring exemption from regulation. In a Q&A on the 2002 licensing law, is this section:
Q, "Who may engage in the activities and services contained in the scope of practice of psychology within the provisions of their licensing laws, but may not use the authorized titles?"
A. ... 4.) "The conduct, activities, or services of any member of the clergy or Christian Science practitioner, in the provision of pastoral counseling services within the context of his or ministerial charge or obligation; ..."
Given the First Amendment's "Establishment" clause, I suspect this is true most places. It will be interesting to see if you can sue a Church or clergyman for spiritual or religious malpractice, but given the nature of religion, I suspect you can't.
For example, the New York licensure law for people providing psychological counseling services includes a glaring exemption from regulation. In a Q&A on the 2002 licensing law, is this section:
Q, "Who may engage in the activities and services contained in the scope of practice of psychology within the provisions of their licensing laws, but may not use the authorized titles?"
A. ... 4.) "The conduct, activities, or services of any member of the clergy or Christian Science practitioner, in the provision of pastoral counseling services within the context of his or ministerial charge or obligation; ..."
Given the First Amendment's "Establishment" clause, I suspect this is true most places. It will be interesting to see if you can sue a Church or clergyman for spiritual or religious malpractice, but given the nature of religion, I suspect you can't.