"However, it's awfully hard to separate "Christian faith" from a particular denomination once the floodgates are opened."
Come on, what floodgates? There was no wall, there were no gates to open until the God-haters conjured them into existence in the 60s. For most of the country's history we did just fine without those walls.
"When churches participate directly in the political process, specifically endorsing one candidate, then they have entered into a different zone."
I disagree entirely. Churches are voluntary associations of free citizens, and there is no excuse whatever for curtailing their speech. They are not agencies of the government, nor are they funded by the government. Regulating the speech of people just because they are in a church building is the most egregious insult to the First Amendment imaginable.
The First Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law (establishing an official church), or prohibiting the free exercise (of religion); or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble..."
The only bit your position does not violate is "or of the press."
"In that event, they are acting just like any other campaign source and will eventually be regulated as such."
What in the world is a "campaign source," and where does the Constitution give the Federal Government the right to "regulate" them?
Every US citizen has an absolute, iron-clad Constitutional right to assemble and discuss politics. That right is not lost by the act of entering a building designated as a church.
Every US citizen has an absolute, iron-clad Constitutional right to express his political opinions. That right is not lost because one is ordained.
"It should come as no surprise if such politically active churches lose their tax-exempt status."
Not a surprise, but an abhorrent abuse and violation of our God-given rights, as enumerated in the Constitution.
"If, on the other hand, a church limits their voice to opinions on specific issues, instead of a particular candidate, there can be no argument from the government."
The God-haters are already seeking to invoke the violence of Government to suppress just such speech, i.e. that on issues instead of a particular candidate. Articles reporting that have been posted on FR in recent days.
The "middle of the road" is just "halfway to the wrong side." Freedom of speech and religion must be inviolate.
"Voicing a strict opinion on issues of right and wrong is what churches do."
And what they are now being sued and investigated for.
"Endorsing specific candidates is what campaign contributers do."
I reiterate, every US citizen has an absolute, iron-clad Constitutional right to assemble and discuss politics, and to express his political opinions. That right is not lost by the act of entering a building designated as a church, or because one is ordained.
These efforts to suppress political speech on the grounds that it occurs in buildings designated as churches are nothing more dignified than a thinly veiled attempt to strip churchgoers of important Constitutional protections.
The sleaziest part of it is that leftist legislators, knowing they could never get away with passing a law explicitly depriving citizens of civil rights on the basis of religious affiliation, are using a renegade IRS to do their dirty work.
Everything you wrote is absolutely true. However, it doesn't address the problem of a church, not a person expressly endorsing a particular candidate. The difference is that a citizen isn't a tax-exempt institution, and a church is not a citizen.
The constitution does, absolutely protect the free speech rights of citizens. But there is no constitutional guarantee that a politically active church can remain a tax-exempt institution, while the members of that church can say whatever they like, that's guaranteed.