I put this here, because it's bound to draw some "political" comments. It was in my church bulletin this weekend and I thought it profound that something from 1526 would apply so well today.
Written by Dr. Martin Luther in 1526"What men write about war, saying that it is a great plague, is all true. But they should also consider how great the plague is that war prevents. If people were good and wanted to keep peace, war would be the greatest plague on earth. But what are you going to do about the fact that people will not keep the peace, but rob, steal, kill, outrage women and children, and take away property and honor? The small lack of peace called war or the sword must set a limit to this universal, worldwide lack of peace which would destroy everyone."
If you're referring to Martin Luther King, Jr., then yes I believe you are right. This quote however is from Dr. Martin Luther (no King)...and, unless he was omniscient, had no thoughts about the Vietnam war whatsoever...given that it was 1526.
FYI - I did the same "double-take" at the name when I read this in church.
Of course, Dr. Luther also said "I have learned to ascribe the honor of infallibility only to those books that are accepted as canonical. I am profoundly convinced that none of these writers has erred." in regards to the Bible. And from that infallible work in Exodus 20:1-2 "Thou shalt not kill"
"It is well that war is so terrible, lest we grow too fond of it." - Robert E. Lee
Just as another aside, thou shall not *kill* is not the best interpretation of Exodus. The Hebrews did plenty of killing with all those offerings, you know.
"Some mathematicians did try to make the calculations, and the result was a rather acrimonious confrontation between themselves and some of the leading Darwinists at the Wistar Institute in Philadelphia in 1967. The report of the exchange in fascinating, not just because of the substance of the mathematical challenge, but even more because of the logic of the Darwinist response. ...[T]he mathematician D.S. Ulam argued that it was highly improbable that the eye could have evolved by the accumulation of small mutations, because the number of mutations would have to be so large and the time available was not nearly long enough for them to appear. Sir Peter Medawar and C.H. Waddington responded that Ulam was doing his science backwards; the fact was that the eye *had* evolved and therefore the mathematical difficulties must only be apparent. Ernst Mayr observed that Ulam's calculations were based on assumptions that might be unfounded, and concluded that 'Somehow or other by adjusting these figures we will come out alright. We are comforted by the fact that evolution has occured.'" - Phillip Johnson, *Darwin on Trial*
And, the God who gave the order not to 'kill' also smote whole tribes of Palestinians. Furthermore, if you take 'kill' to its logical extreme, then we would not be able to eat animals (or even plants) because we 'kill' them at some point in the process of eating them.
I think that you need a little more context in comparing/reconciling those two quotes.
I'll repeat what I've said in the past about Democratic races: the September frontrunner often loses and somebody comes from nowhere(i.e. not in the race or the 1-2% region) to win it. Just historical trends.