As follow-up to the last post: America allows for the growth of the "mega-church" as the mega-church reflects the American ideal. So the largest mega-church seems to be a natural venue for a pre-election debate between presidential candidates.
The election process is not a concern. What catches the eye is the venue, a "church" as the meeting ground for a political debate such as this. We see how the "mega-church" defines the event just as the "mega-church" becomes defined by it. Such a debate gives the "mega-church" its ultimate purpose, meaning and role in a democratic society. A future president has a connection to the largest congregation in the land.
From another vantage point this raises the question of "church." The non-denominational approach is already a conscious attempt to flee from the traditional understanding of "church." Still, the name "church" is retained to attract the faithful. In short, this is "church" and it is "not church" at the same time.
So the question here becomes not so much the possibility of hosting such a debate or using a venue such as this but whether or not, if the ultimate purpose, meaning and role of "church" is re-defined as it has been and is being done in the public eye, that the word "church" still be included as a description or label for this venue or its continued gatherings following the great debate.