The Edict of Milan aimed to empower Christians, not to establish religious toleration as we understand it. It was a political act, which sought to strengthen the Emperors hand. He intervened to strengthen the orthodox party in the Christian Church, and even before he dealt with the Arian issue, dealt with the Donatists. It was the divisions in the church more than the secular power that was at the root of the matter. It was their divisions, their lack of unity that prompted them to let Caesar decide. It was the same thing that recurred in the 16th century, in what is called the Reformation, but which was in fact a bloody war between Christians, that played into the hands of princes, and in the end, caused such slaughter that Christianity was discredited in the eyes of reasonable men. What a difference an iota in a creed can make can make, or as the Jews discovered once upon a time, the taking of one man’s life can cause fountains of human blood to flow.
On Lininius' 312 AD Edict of Milan:
"Since Licinius composed the Edict with the intent of publishing it in the east upon his hoped-for victory over Maximinus, it was expressive of the religious policy accepted by Licinius, a pagan, rather than that of Constantine, who was already a committed Christian. [sic]
"Constantine's own policy went beyond merely tolerating Christianity: he tolerated paganism and other religions, but he actively promoted Christianity."
RobbyS: "It was a political act, which sought to strengthen the Emperors hand.
He intervened to strengthen the orthodox party in the Christian Church, and even before he dealt with the Arian issue, dealt with the Donatists."
First, remember that Constantine did not issue the Edict of Milan, Licinius did.
Second, remember that the Edict of Milan had nothing to do with either Donatists or Arians.
It was a document of religious tolerance, not enforcement of doctrinal uniformity.
RobbyS: "It was the divisions in the church more than the secular power that was at the root of the matter.
It was their divisions, their lack of unity that prompted them to let Caesar decide."
That statement alone should clue us that the long-term outcome could not be good.
RobbyS: "It was the same thing that recurred in the 16th century, in what is called the Reformation, but which was in fact a bloody war between Christians, that played into the hands of princes, and in the end, caused such slaughter that Christianity was discredited in the eyes of reasonable men."
First, the Reformation was in fact a religious reformation, which resulted in bloody wars (i.e., 30 Years War) whose levels of destruction were not seen again until 20th Century World Wars, and arguably not even then.
Second, there are no better examples of "reasonable men" in the Age of Enlightenment than our own Founding Fathers.
Without exception, they all respected Christianity as the basis for morality and civilization, but were also keenly aware that when the Church becomes politically powerful, it can also go insane with lust for vengeance against its enemies -- real or imaginary.
Therefore, the absolute right of religious freedom is not simply in the Bill of Rights, it is the first clause of the First Amendment.
That's as basic as you can get.
RobbyS: "What a difference an iota in a creed can make can make, or as the Jews discovered once upon a time, the taking of one man’s life can cause fountains of human blood to flow."
So you are familiar with the "iota's worth of difference"?
And so you perhaps understand that whatever other virtues the old Church Fathers may have had, when it came to non-biblical religious doctrines, they were stark raving insane?
And just possibly you've inherited their religiously insane gene, in your apparent lust to punish Jews for allowing Romans to execute a heretic that the New Testament tells us was required by God to forgive our sins?
Some Jews did what God required, and you wish forever to punish their descendants?
How much more insane is it possible to get?