The martial art that we call aikido is a technical curriculum whose application is in the art of man-to-man conflict. As civilians, we have some allowance to redefine this application to a broader sense of conflict, not necessarily militant.
I think if you argue to remove the successful demonstration of technical knowledge you are no longer talking about a martial art (a technical education), but rather a liberal art (a general education).
As far as I know Oīsensei redefined aikibudo to aikido in the course of his martial career..? He also stated that Aikido is the budo of love and compassion. He also engaged in religious activities in a religion that now promotes Esperanza because the goal is to unite all of mankind, to break down the barriers between "us and them".
I am no expert in Omoto Kyo at all, but I have read some of their texts and their goals and to me it seems that Aikido is the physical realisation of Omoto Kyo. Actually doing basic Aikido training
is practising Omoto Kyo principles.. This also goes very well in hand with the fact that Onosaburo Deguchi encouraged Oīsensei to use his martial skills to build a budo of love..?
So I guess in that sence we are allowed to define Aikido as liberal as we wish for as long as Aikido stays connected to itīs martial roots. And can still be considered a martial art. I think the true genius lies in the seemingly dualistic compromise we feel is somewhat a huge bite to chew that love and war are two pieces of the same puzzle.. they are inseperable in fact.