Deletion of You're either with us, or against us

Comment: In response to you saying "Thus, the topic is incredibly encyclopedic per our First pillar": The word "encyclopedic" has a static definition, meaning that what is and is not encyclopedic is immutable outside of the opinions of the editors here. Something is not granted "encyclopedicness points" by this so-called First Pillar of Wikipedia. This is related the concept set forth in The Emperor's New Clothes; if an article is a piece of crap and irrelevant, it's a piece of crap and irrelevant...no matter what a Wikipedia policy says. As it says in , "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." I would expand on that to say this: I don't think there's anything wrong with any of the Wikipedia policies. If you think that a Wikipedia policy is saying something which conflicts with improving Wikipedia, then you're reading of the policy is incorrect. Not the policy. Either way, you can set your conscience (if you have one) free via the spirit of 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (WP:IAR||WP:IAR)

Comment: and rename He who is not with me is against me (taking Jesus as more canonical than Gaston (Beauty and the Beast)). This article should be considered as a stub-class historical development of a commonly and widely expressed thought (announcing lack of middle ground); for a polished example of this class, see ethic of reciprocity. Considered in this class, it should (and does) read like a historical review of usages that might appear, abbreviated, in Bartlett's. It is certainly , certainly encyclopedic, it was both of those before 9/11, and if there is  in a couple sentences that is not a deletion argument. The other deletion arguments read to me like  and wikilawyering. Also, this is an excellent add to :Category:Political catch phrases. I will also add a critical source
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:OR||WP:IDONTLIKEIT)