The above links give a historical perspective of how we got in this mess.

Senate Bills 1181 & 1182 failed to make it out of the House Health & Welfare Committee before the Legislature adjourned for  the year on Friday, March 19. Religious counseling freedom issues still remain in the Idaho Code, but are much less onerous than they would have been with the passage of SB-1182.

** Please peruse this entire page for a basic overview of the 1999 "faith based" counseling issue in Idaho. **

Rutherford Institute Opinion
Dr. Bulkley's Letter
Letter to Post Register Newspaper
Letter to Rep. Delores Crow
Text of SB-1182 Change
Idaho Guaranty of Religious Liberty
House H&W Committee Members
Idaho Representatives
March 18 Article   March 15 Article   March 9 Article   March 8 Article
   March 3 Article    March 1 Article    February 23 Article    February 22 Article 

(March 18, 1999)   Indications are that bills to limit religious counseling freedoms in Idaho, SB-1181 and SB-1182, will die as the 1999 legislative session winds down. After having passed the Senate earlier in the session, the bills remain in the House Health and Welfare Committee; the posted agenda for that committee indicates that today's meeting will be their last of the session and that it will not deal will any pending legislation. The Legislature will likely adjourn on Friday.

While House rules allow for any representative to "Call for Bills" that are still in committee, it is very unlikely that such action would ever be taken on any bill; nor is it likely that such a call would prevail under current circumstances. It appears that the legislative front of the battle to preserve our cherished religious freedoms has been held off for another year.

It seems imperative that, if we are to retain our freedoms, we must be vigilant throughout the year to educate others about these issues as opportunities arise. Thoughtful and objective consideration of the fundamental aspects of religious freedom will be necessary if we are to effectively guard it for future generations. All who do their part toward this noble end must be commended.

** Return to Top of Page **

(March 16, 1999)    The following letter was written to the Post Register newspaper in response to an article penned by reporter Gene Fadness and published on Monday, March 15, 1999. Mr. Fadness had, the day before, discussed with Nels Wilson issues relating to the SB-1182 attempt to limit religious counseling freedom. The Post Register article can be viewed for a limited time at www.idahonews.com/031599/THE_WEST/35630.htm .

To the Editor:

Gene Fadness' article on SB-1182, a bill that would add limitations to "faith-based" counseling in Idaho, is likely interesting and informative to those who know little about the issue.

However, it is unfortunate that your first reference to my name suggests that I am motivated in this matter by a desire to defend Dr. Harper, whom you earlier had cast in the negative light of his having lost his license. As I told Mr. Fadness during our telephone discussion, I do not really know much about the circumstances under which Dr. Harper lost his license. If my actions have the effect of defending him, it is purely incidental to my greater motivation that arises from a religious conscience which demands that I not turn and look the other way while precious freedoms, integral to my ability to function as an obedient Christian, are attacked by the Trojan horse strategies of the "licensed professionals."

You wrote, "But, there were still abuses...For instance, Anthony Harper of Boise had his license removed due to alleged ethical violations", etc. Then you added, "One of Harper's defenders is Nels Wilson, owner of a Christian radio station in Boise." Your inclusion of the word "alleged" is kind, but it hardly balances the fact that the whole reference was in the context of the statement, "But there were still abuses..." The over-all implication, inadvertent or otherwise, is that I am soft on "abuses even from religious counselors..." My disgust for the practice of memory regression therapy and similar counseling foolishness was clarified to Mr. Fadness, just as it has been to our listening audience, in testimony before the legislature, and by way of articles posted on our web pages. Furthermore, I never implied to Mr. Fadness that the Stephenson case involved mere allegations.

From a Christian perspective, it appears to me that much of what the "professionals" have promulgated and continue to practice is in fact "abusive." Memory regression, phrenology, shock treatment, mild-altering drugs, etc. have come from the professionals. Why should they be honored with the crown of State validation at the expense of others who have used more reasonable and effective common sense and biblical approaches to resolving problems of the soul? Yes, the very term "psychology" derives from a Greek word meaning "soul." By definition, then, it would seem that it should be the exclusive domain of those who do their work on behalf of God; but the practice of counseling has been "highjacked" by the credentialed secular elite who continue to tighten the noose by such vehicles as SB-1182.

Your statement that I have enlisted the help of the Rutherford Institute to fight this legislation goes beyond the truth of the matter. You should have known that, as a 501(c)(3) tax exempt organization itself, the Rutherford Institute cannot play a substantial role in influencing legislation. As a "civil liberties organization dedicated to preserving freedoms of religion and speech", they were kind enough to simply render an opinion with regard to the unconstitutional aspects of current Idaho law and the even more serious flaws that would be imposed by SB-1182. It is interesting that you omitted any reference to the substance of that very concise legal opinion.

Additionally, for whatever reason, you mentioned Rev. Pat Robertson as you wrongly indicated that he had established the Rutherford Institute. John W. Whitehead, a renowned constitutional lawyer, is listed on their letterhead as the founder and president of the organization; I have no reason to doubt the truth of that.

Some of the other attributions to my part of the discussion with Mr. Fadness are begging for more of the context, but I've said enough.

I hope that this exercise will prompt both of our news media to be more careful with the facts.

Serving Christ through radio,

Nelson (Nels) M. Wilson
KBGN Christian Radio
Caldwell, Idaho
kbgn@kbgnradio.com

** Return to Top of Page **

(March 15, 1999)   The secretary of the Health and Welfare Committee in the Idaho House of Representatives verified this afternoon that SB-1182, a bill that would put restrictions on the freedom to engage in "faith-based" counseling, will not be considered by the committee this Tuesday, as had earlier been indicated. It was said that other important matters had taken precedence. As the legislative session winds down and the lawmakers try to make sense of so many and varied bills, the process often becomes very intense. It has been said that leadership hopes for an adjournment on Friday.

In this "anything can happen" atmosphere, concerned citizens must watch the process closely just to stay on top of issues. It remains important that your legislators continue to be reminded of your concerns.

** Return to Top of Page **

(March 9, 1999)   Representative Dorothy Reynolds said today that SB-1182 and SB-1181 will be considered by her Health and Welfare committee on Tuesday, March 16, sometime after 2:30 in the afternoon. The Committee Chairman remarked about the number of messages that her office has received from citizens who are opposed to adding limitations to the current broad exemption for "faith based counseling of any kind." Because the current law makes such a brief, simple and broad exemption for religious counseling, proponents of religious liberty are hoping that the committee will simply kill SB-1182 without attempting any amendments.

Opponents of Idaho's unconstitutional Pastoral Counselor law would like to see SB-1181 amended so as to simply repeal the ill-conceived Idaho Code 54-3405A, rather than accepting its weak attempt to remove the Code's unconstitutional aspects. SB-1181 would simply remove references to professional counselor trade associations while imposing similar standards.

** Return to Top of Page **

The following E-mail letter was received March 10 from Dr. Ed Bulkley, host of the nationally syndicated radio broadcast Return to the Word and author of numerous books, including Why Christians Can't Trust Psychology.

***

Mr. Nels Wilson
KBGN Christian Radio

Nels,

I am following the progress of SB-1182 in Idaho with great concern because of how it could easily be used as an attack on local pastors and churches who dare to counsel their own people Biblically and who are not licensed by the state. It hits me as very similar to the Chinese communist government's control over churches in China that must register with the government to avoid persecution and confiscation of property.

The same arguments being used by legislators and lobbyists in Idaho could be supported enthusiastically by totalitarian regimes determined to crush all dissent and freedom of thought.

As the Rutherford Institute has stated, they are concerned that SB-1182 "would open up non-incorporated churches and religious pastoral counselors to liability for so-called "clergy malpractice" claims based upon unlicensed counseling."

Who would have dreamed that state governments in the western United States would remove themselves so far from the notions of privacy, self-reliance, and personal freedom, all under the guise of trying to protect the vulnerable counselee?

I encourage you and all freedom-loving citizens of Idaho to vigorously oppose this misguided legislation. I am convinced it will precipitate another needless constitutional battle which will, no doubt, move all the way to the Supreme Court.

What ever happened to common sense and respect for the local church? I dare say, Idaho legislators would object violently if the church dared to intrude into governmental issues, since they would plead the "separation of church and state." The truth is, many governmental officials see that doctrine of separation as going only one way, against the church.

Perhaps there are still a few legislators there with conscience, moral integrity, and constitutional awareness who can protect the citizens of Idaho. If so, they will oppose this insidious SB-1182 which is being promoted by
officials and therapists who wish to control one more aspect of human existence.

I grieve with you.

Sincerely yours,


Dr. Ed Bulkley
LIFE COUNSELING CENTER
Westminster, Colorado

** Return to Top of Page **

THE RUTHERFORD INSTITUTE

March 9, 1999

Mr. Nels Wilson
KBGN
3303 E. Chicago
Caldwell, ID  83605

        Re: Idaho Senate Bill 1182

Dear Mr. Wilson:

        The Rutherford Institute has been asked to review and comment upon Idaho Senate Bill 1182, which has been passed in the State Senate and is currently under consideration by the House Revenue and Taxation Committee.  The Rutherford Institute is an international non-profit civil liberties organization dedicated to preserving freedoms of religion and speech.  For the reasons stated below, we believe that while the statute that is proposed to be amended, Idaho Code 54-3402, raises constitutional concerns, on balance the proposed amendment thereof is even more seriously flawed.

        As written, the Idaho Code provision in question states that the requirement for licensing of counselors is inapplicable to "the activities and services of any religious denomination or sect or faith based counseling of any kind . . . ."  The language of this provision places governmental licensing authorities in the constitutionally tenuous position of determining where the line between "faith based counseling" and secular counseling is drawn.   The Supreme Court has historically cautioned against this kind of intrusive investigation into the degree of religious conviction or motivation an activity entails.   For example, in Texas Monthly, Inc. v. Bullock, 489 U.S. 1 (1989), the Supreme Court struck down a Texas statute that granted tax exempt status only to religious periodicals. The Court found that on its face, the tax exemption produced an entanglement of government into religious affairs because the statute required public officials to determine whether a message in the publication conformed with the "teaching of the faith" in order to qualify for the exemption.  See also Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1970) (warning against "excessive entanglement" between government and religion that arises from pervasive monitoring of religious activity by the state).   Nor is the distinction drawn by the statute necessarily descriptive of the actual content of a counselor's methods.  A Christian counselor who employs predominantly Biblical views and methods may nonetheless be subjected to liability under the law if these views are not overtly expressed, while one who denominates himself a "Christian counselor" but employs strictly secular psychotherapeutic methods may avoid licensure.

        On the other hand, the proposed amendment raises even more serious concerns.  In essence, the amendment would grant the exemption only to counselors who operate under the auspices of a tax-exempt IRC 501(c)(3) entity.  The line the amendment seeks to draw makes a distinction between religious counselors who choose to incorporate and those who do not, a line which potentially implicates the Free Exercise of Religion Clause of the First Amendment.  See Frazee v. Department of Employment Security, __U.S.__ (1986) (holding that the Free Exercise Clause protects religious persons outside of denominations or in non-recognized or nontraditional denominations or faith systems).   Moreover, though this distinction purports to be based upon the charitable status of a tax-exempt organization vis-a-vis the for-profit nature of a non-exempt individual or organization, the distinction does not reflect real practice.  The First Amendment and the Internal Revenue Code protect the tax-free status of a religious organization whether or not it is incorporated.  Further, many decline to incorporate as an expression of their religious beliefs.  For some denominations and congregations, the idea of forming a corporation to handle church business affairs is tantamount to giving the reigns of the church to State government.  Those who hold that incorporation is wrong as a theological position do so primarily because, in their view, a church by definition is a divinely created entity and should not have even the appearance of affiliation with government.

        An equally serious concern is that the proposed amendment would open up non-incorporated churches and religious pastoral counselors to liability for so-called "clergy malpractice" claims based upon unlicensed counseling. The tort of clergy malpractice was rejected by California in an influential case in the 1980's,  Nally v. Grace Community Church of the Valley, 763 P.2d 948, 950-52 (Cal. 1988), cert. denied, 109 S. Ct. 1644 (1989).  The reasoning of the California Supreme Court was based in part on its view that the California legislature had exempted clergy from secular licensing requirements, thus indicating discomfort in imposing state counseling standards on spiritual workers.   Id. at 956.  Certainly, imposing a licensure requirement on unincorporated religious counselors would open the door to claims of malpractice against clergy, and the resultant regime of liability would greatly chill the exercise of this important spiritual benefit.

        The proposed amendment may be unconstitutional for a further reason.  The Supreme Court has declared that religious entities are not automatically entitled to a religious exemption under the Free Exercise Clause from generally applicable, religiously neutral, laws.   Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990).  However, if the statute in question establishes a system of exceptions or exemptions that draw distinctions on the basis of subjective criteria, no exemption from the law's application may be denied on the basis of religious belief. Id.  S.B. 1182 provides several categories of exemption, for counselors in government service, counseling students, non-residents (in certain circumstances) and persons offering counseling services within public or private non-profit organizations.  A statute which establishes a system of exemptions but denies exempt status on the basis of religious belief must be justified by demonstrating a compelling governmental interest is furthered by the statute using means narrowly tailored to achieve the desired ends.  Smith, supra.  It is doubtful that Idaho could justify the denial of exempt status to non-incorporated religious counselors, since the interest sought to be achieved -- regulation of incompetent or abusive counselors -- is far outweighed by the damage that may be done to the exercise of religious and spiritual counseling in general.  Again, on balance, the current system of exemption in Idaho Code 54-3402 would seem to be less onerous.

        The Rutherford Institute hopes that this letter has helped to clarify the constitutional issues raised by the proposed amendment.  If you have any questions or require further information, please do not hesitate to contact us.  Of course, you are free to distribute this letter as you consider it appropriate.

Very truly yours,

STEVEN H. ADEN, ESQ.
Litigation Counsel
The Rutherford Institute

(Bold emphasis was not in the original.)

** Return to Top of Page **

(March 8, 1999)  It appears that our suspicions, as expressed in our March 3 article, may have been wrong. KBGN spoke this evening with Representative Delores Crow, chairman of the Revenue and Taxation committee, and learned that the unusual routing of SB-1182 was apparently due to the fact that  Speaker Bruce Newcomb, in deciding where to route the bill, thought that the reference to Internal Revenue Code section 501(c)(3) involved some tax issue. Indicating that it is simply a matter of routine, Chairman Crow told KBGN that she will ask for unanimous consent to send SB-1182 to the Health and Welfare committee when it comes up Tuesday morning. That committee drafted the language of the current broad exemption for "faith based" counseling, an exemption which would be greatly restricted by SB-1182. It seems likely that SB-1182 will be considered along with SB-1181, a related bill which seeks to eliminate some of the unconstitutional aspects of Idaho Code 54-3405A, while still licensing Pastoral Counselors.

It is important for advocates of religious freedom to contact their representatives and clearly express their reasons for opposing SB-1182. One must keep in mind that the dangers of this legislation are not seen clearly by everyone at first glance; this is due in part to the wording of the bill's Statement of Purpose which gives no indication that religious counseling is currently totally exempt under Idaho law.

It will be important for citizens to show up when the committee meets to consider this legislation; it is most effective when citizens give thoughtful testimony before the committee.

Members of the House Health and Welfare Committee are as follows:

** Return to Top of Page **

** Return to Top of Page **

A basic overview of the current issue is found in the several articles on this page, beginning with an E-mail message that was sent  3/3/1999:

Honorable Representative Delores Crow: 

I write to you about a matter of grave concern for those of us who cherish our religious freedoms. I was surprised to discover that SB-1182, dealing with the issue of counselor licensing, has been referred to your Revenue and Taxation Committee. This seems highly irregular, especially in light of the fact that a related bill which has met with less opposition, SB-1181, was not also sent to your committee. Perhaps the bill's proponents seek to avoid the scrutiny of the Health and Welfare committee which, last year, drafted the specific exemption language which they strive to strike down.

I beg of you to give serious consideration of the following points:

During the last legislative session there was extensive debate on the issue of Counselor Licensing, especially as it relates to religious counselors. In short, licensed professional counselors pushed to make counselor licensing mandatory but were not successful in getting all that they wanted; they are now attempting to finish the job. As the bill's sponsor, Senator Ipsen, stated in his testimony before the Senate, "the counselors suggested we come back and restrict it to those" who have 501(c)(3) tax exempt status with the Internal Revenue Service.  

This bill, which is now in your hands, would undo a most important provision that was included in the law during last year's debate. SB-1182 would change Idaho law to require a license for all lay counselors, whether in or out of an exempted church. More ominously, if applied literally and interpreted as broadly as the chapter instructs,  it could be used to require licensure for even the pastor of any church which, although legally tax exempt, has not filed with the Internal Revenue Service under Chapter 501(c)(3) of the IRS Code; there are many such churches, and most pastors do counseling as construed from the definition in the existing code.

With regard to a recent cursory review by Deputy Attorney General Matthew McKeown and his suggestion that the bill probably does not constitute the "establishment" of religion or impair the "free exercise" of religion, it is important to note that the decision not to register under Chapter 501(c)(3) is generally motivated by a conviction that religious practice must remain separated from any semblance of state entanglement. To force Chapter 501(c)(3) compliance in order to avoid a mandatory counselor license would indeed be a clear imposition upon the "free exercise" of religion. Furthermore, Deputy KcKeown's opinion does not reference the more explicit provisions of Article 1, Section IV of the Idaho Constitution:

SECTION 4.  GUARANTY OF RELIGIOUS LIBERTY. The exercise and enjoyment of religious faith and worship shall forever be guaranteed; and no person shall be denied any civil or political right, privilege, or capacity on account of his religious opinions..... No person shall be required to attend or support any ministry or place of worship, religious sect or denomination, or pay tithes against his consent; nor shall any preference be given by law to any religious denomination or mode of worship.

The context of Deputy McKeown's opinion acknowledges that the only way to qualify for the limited religious exemption allowed by SB-1182 would be "to obtain tax exempt status pursuant to federal law", specifically pursuant to section 501(c)(3). This imposition would constitute a clear denial of a "right, privilege or capacity on account of his religious opinions" and would be a definite "preference...given by law to [any] religious denomination" that holds no conviction against such government registration.

Though current law unfortunately provides no exemption for numerous counseling situations in which an unaffiliated person may find himself, it does, as the Idaho State and United States constitutions require, provide clear exemptions for "faith based" counseling. In my work as a Christian broadcaster who regularly teaches a young people's class here at our studios, there are situations which occasionally arise which could be construed to meet the broad definition of "professional counseling" under the current code; technically, I would be functioning outside the law were it not for the important exemption that now exists and which SB-1182 seeks to overturn. 

It can be readily documented that the instances of harm or abuse, relative to counseling practices, have generally come from the realm of the secular professional community or from philosophies which have been borrowed from them; instances from within the realm of "faith based" counseling are the exception. The greater danger lies in this attempt to impose the State into regulating religious titles and practices.

While impinging unconstitutionally upon religion, SB-1182 would serve to protect none other than the elite licensed professionals who would have less competition by force of law. Sadly, it will put the State of Idaho at odds with the multitudes who will be compelled by biblical mandates and principles to obey God as they honor him by serving their brothers and sisters in a multitude of situations.

Please, do whatever you can to stop this legislation!

I have included with this message a bit of more specific information which may help in your decision about this important matter. 

With sincere concern for the citizens of Idaho,

Nelson M. Wilson
Owner / General Manager 
KBGN Christian Radio 
3303 E. Chicago St.
Caldwell, ID 83605 
208-459-3635
kbgn@kbgnradio.com

** Return to Top of Page **

(March 3, 1999)   The legislative tracking record indicates that Senate Bill 1182, which was passed by the Idaho Senate on Monday, has not been sent to the House Health & Welfare committee where it normally would have gone; instead it has been sent to the Revenue and Taxation committee. The fact that the bill's less damaging and less opposed cousin, SB-1181, was sent, as usual, to the Health and Welfare committee, suggests that the abnormal routing of SB-1182 was arranged by its Senate proponents who do not want it to be so carefully scrutinized as was a similar attempt last year which resulted in the House Health and Welfare committee writing the clear and broad religious counseling exemption that SB-1182 seeks to overturn.

** Return to Top of Page **

(March 1, 1999)     On a 29 to 6 vote this morning, the Idaho Senate approved SB-1182 and sent it to the House Health and Welfare Committee. It was that committee which, last year, drafted the language which SB-1182 seeks to dramatically change. Last year, while agreeing to make counselor licensing mandatory, the House committee saw the need to make a very broad and clear exception for religious counseling. Having failed to get the full professional preference that they had sought last year, as Senator Ipsen stated in Senate testimony, "the counselors suggested we come back and restrict it to those" who have 501(c)(3) tax exempt status with the Internal Revenue Service. Senator Ipsen, in admitting that he had received "about 50 or so messages", down-played the significance of citizen response by implying that they were simply making an uninformed response to "what we've heard". The Senator said that he had made calls to six of them and suggested that all, after hearing the proposed change, had said, "Well, we can support that."

The only negative debate on SB-1182 came from Senator Darrel Deide, who rose to say, "I guess I would suggest that we do, in fact, read the bill."  The Senator reiterated the current law regarding religious counseling, which basically says "that the government isn't going to have anything to do with it." Quoting from the specific clause that would be changed by SB-1182, Senator Deide stated, "I think those are good words; good intent;  and this changes that. And I, for one, think that it changes it in the wrong direction. So I would urge you to vote 'no' on this piece of legislation."

It should be noted that SB-1182's Statement of Purpose implies that the bill is strengthening exemptions for religious counseling; this is simply not true. All "faith based" counseling is already exempt under existing law; SB-1182 will put limitations on faith based counseling by excluding some from exemption and requiring them to obtain a license to continue what they now do legally. Your Representatives, especially now in the House Health & Welfare committee, must look beyond the Statement of Purpose to discern the truth that SB-1182 will limit the exemption to only certain clergy.

** Return to Top of Page **

Senate Committee Votes to Limit Religious Freedom

(February 23, 1999)   The Senate Health and Welfare Committee voted unanimously Tuesday Morning to send both SB-1181 and SB-1182 to the full Senate with a 'Do Pass' recommendation. Due to the short notice given, none who were opposed to the bills were able to present their arguments and its doubtful that many E-mail or other messages reached the Committee in time to even be considered. Senator Wheeler said that the requirement for religious institutions to be tax exempt pursuant to section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code seemed like "an unholy alliance" but, none-the-less, he still voted for the measure. Similarly, Senator Crow said of certain portions of SB-1181, "This is a tough line to dance on for a person of faith."; he voted 'Aye' as well.

As a result, the bills will surely be considered very soon on the Senate floor. It is imperative that you immediately let the Senators know how you feel about this legislation. The gravest concern relates to SB-1182 which destroys important religious freedom exemptions passed in 1998. Please ask your Senators to vote 'No' on this bill which would serve only to limit competition for licensed counselors while infringing terribly upon religious freedoms in Idaho. SB-1181 should be amended to repeal Idaho Code 54-3405A which deals specifically with the licensing of Pastoral Counselors. Experience suggests that the House of Representatives offers the best hope for a proper resolution to this serious freedom issue; please communicate with them -- especially those on the Health and Welfare Committee.

Please read the following report which explains further.

** Return to Top of Page **

Senate Bill 1182 would destroy religious freedoms
reiterated by 1998 Idaho Legislature!

(February 22, 1999)    During the 1998 Idaho legislative session, as "Licensed Professional Counselors" attempted to gain full control of all counseling activities in the state, a very important religious exemption was included in the language of Idaho Code 54-3402 (4) paragraph (6). The exemption, which came as a result of careful and lengthy consideration in the House Health and Welfare committee, reads as follows:

Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to apply to the activities and services of any religious denomination or sect or faith based counseling of any kind.

This language was necessary to bring the Counselor License laws into conformity with both the United States and Idaho Constitutions and, when interpreted literally, it effectively voided ( See Letter to Counselor License Board ) Idaho Code 54-3405A. QUALIFICATIONS FOR LICENSURE FOR PASTORAL COUNSELORS, which had been rushed through with no significant debate during the hectic hours at the end of the 1997 legislative session.

On February 16, 1999, SB-1182 and another less ominous Pastoral Counselor bill, SB-1181, were reported to the Senate Health and Welfare Committee which is chaired by Senator Grant Ipsen who has for several years been a impetus behind legislative impositions into the matter of Pastoral Counseling. SB-1182 would make the following change to the current law:

Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to apply to the activities and services of any religious denomination or sect or faith based counseling of any kind services of a rabbi, priest, minister, or clergy of any religious denomination when performing counseling services as a part of religious duties and in connection with a specific synagogue, church or mosque which has tax exempt status pursuant to section 501 (c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code .

Considering this proposed change, in conjunction with the following existing provisions of Idaho Code, it is evident that the proponents of SB-1182 intend to prohibit or frustrate any counseling that might be done by any normal unlicensed lay citizens, without regard to the common sense, religious basis, or effectiveness of their counsel:

Idaho Code 54-3400...This chapter should be construed liberally to carry out these objectives and purposes.;

Idaho Code 54-3401 (5)..."Practice of professional counseling" means the application of mental health, psychological, and human development principles in order to facilitate human development and adjustment throughout the life span [and] includes, but is not limited to (a) Individual, group, marriage and family counseling and therapy; (b) Assessment; (c) Crisis intervention; (d) Treatment of persons with mental and emotional disorders; (e) Guidance and consulting to facilitate normal growth and development, including educational and career development; (f) Utilization of functional assessment and counseling for persons requesting assistance in adjustment to a disability or handicapping condition; (g) Consulting; (h) Research; and (i) Referral. The use of specific methods, techniques, or modalities within the practice of professional counseling is restricted to professional counselors appropriately trained in the use of such methods, techniques or modalities.  ( Reporters Note: How can "methods, techniques, or modalities" be "specific" when they are, in fact, unspecified within the law? )

Idaho Code 54-3402...It shall be unlawful for any person to engage in any of the following acts:... (3) To make use of any title, words, letters or abbreviations which may reasonably be confused with a designation provided by this chapter. (4) To materially refuse to furnish the board information or records required or requested pursuant to this chapter or pursuant to an investigation commenced pursuant to this chapter. ( Reporters Note: Taken literally, Item (3) deals with more than mere titles by which a person might be identified; it also involves things that a person might say in conversing about what one might engage in. Item (4) has terribly ominous ramifications with regard to State intrusion into the personal lives of Idaho citizens and goes beyond the scope of the Counselor Licensing Board's mandate in Idaho Code 54-3404 to regulate the practice of licensed counselors and licensed professional counselors and to review the practice of counselors licensed under this chapter, language clarifying  that the board was intended to deal only with those who were licensed or who were pursuing a license; the board was given no authority to investigate anyone else, or subpoena their personal information or records. )

Idaho Code 54-3408 (3) declares unlawful any practice or attempt to offer to practice, without a license, anything that could be construed to be professional counseling as defined in this chapter, which broad definition is found in the above cited 54-3401 (5).

Please note that, while it will be illegal for unlicensed or unexempted persons to take money for counseling, the taking of money is not necessary to be in transgression of current law.

All Idaho citizens who cherish the freedom of religion
should study the issues
arising from previous and current legislative actions
with regard to
the licensing of the clearly religious practice of
Pastoral Counseling.

We invite you to study the recent history of the issue, as presented on these pages and then communicate your concerns to the legislature. The issue will be considered in the Senate Health and Welfare Committee at 8:30 AM, Tuesday, February 23 in Room 437. Little can be expected in the Senate Committee on such short notice but, should the bill make it out of committee, it will be imperative that you express your opinions to the House Health and Welfare Committee before they consider it. Click here to find out how to contact your legislators.

In the interest of religious freedom,

Nels Wilson
KBGN Christian Radio
Caldwell, Idaho 83605 

Freedom, which is easily lost, is only regained with great difficulty and terrible sacrifice!

** Return to Top of Page **