Very well spoken and exactly the way I have always felt.  I can't stand how politicians love to pick apart the bible and only recognize what they agree with.   I would love to repost that with you're permission.

Hey Chad, 
           Sometimes "buzz words" can gain a multitude of meanings.  I guess that we are using different meanings for tolerance, inclusion and such.  Perhaps, if I shared my understanding of the words, you'd see them as central to Christian Spirituality?
                     I think that "tolerance", depending on how you define it is definetly a new testament value.  We are clearly asked to respect and love those whose ideas are different than our own, as you mentioned.  I would define tolerance as respectfully allowing others to choose their own beleifs and befriending them, even when we differ significantly.  We also have an obligation to point out, when the other person cares to listen, things that we think will harm them (sin) and to absolutely decry injustice.  It is not "intolerant" to beleive that your right or that your way is best and truest.  It's intolerant (and definetly out of line with new Testament teachings) to try to force another to follow your way, as many Christians and Christian organizations have done throughout history.  This is why I beleive so strongly in free speech.  Salvation is based on choice.  Choice requires thought and clear, honest dialogue.  Of course, when someone's actions harm a third person, tolerance is no longer a virtue, i.e. tolerating the holocaust.
         As far as lightening up the message or even sharing the message, I would think that's far from the minds of most politicians who want to use an "us versus them scare" tactic disguised as Christianity to milk votes and donations.  But, I think there are limited or special occaisions to simplify the whole of Christian spirituality to just "Repent." As you've noticed, John the Baptist did it.  Although he was speaking to Jewsih people who for the most part shared a single understanding of right and wrong and would be less likely to find him annoyingly confusing.  Peter had to be reprimanded for being non-inclusive (The non-kosher meats given by the angel thing) and for pulling out a sword thinking that God needed his defense, but was given a time and place that it was best to just say "repent and beleive."  I personally think that in most cases it's necessary (especially as Christians have a looooooooong track record of being less than loving or respectful) to first befriend a person, hear them out and get to know each other, before they have a chance of realizing that their choices could be "not good" or something to repent of or that God could be anything more than a dour mans sledge hammer.  So, yes, I'd say be upfront and honest about what you beleive, but preach it by living love.   There is too much to the Bible to simultaneously simplify and fully understand.  I'd rather we all come to Christ or choose not to with as full an understanding as we need.
          Inclusion?  Definetly.  Everybody gets loved and respected. And, everybody gets choices, including a choice to share our beleifs or disagree.  I think that if a choice is coerced, it's not much of a choice.  Dialogue?  That's our job.  Being a witness means reporting what you have seen as clearly as possible.  If we don't listen to others, can we expect them to listen to us?  Justice is all over the Bible.  in fact, the only political commandments I can find, other than respecting the government, are to decry injustice. 
        Peace, on the other hand, is definetly debateable depending on how you define it.   We are clearly told that "insofar as it is up to you, be at peace with everyone."   In my letter to the politician, I meant this kind of peace, literally, not harassing the other guy for your own selfish reasons.  Again, that doesn't mean we shouldn't be honest about what we believe or ready to dialogue about it.   But, at all levels we are supposed to at least try to make peace.  I take that to be with our grumpy neighbors, other countries, etc..  On the other hand, there may be a biblical (even New Testament) o.k to join literal war.   As horrible as actual murdering war is, I often wish that the west would have sent an army to stop the Rwandan genocide or that Hitler had been shot.  But, I can't imagine that God favors his children making war on each other and the theology of the churches that carefully think about war is pretty compelling and biblical.   Also, the history of the west is full of "Christians" making war on other Christians and people of other beleif systems.  It would be very hard to try to justify this to God.
                                                               Am I missing your points?   Thank You for the discussion :)
                                                         It would be great to see all Christians leading with an example of Love.
                                                                                  Thanks again for the discussion.  Full on Respect, David