PsiCop

The point in responding in such a way, to people like that, is to turn the tables on them and represent, back to them, their own attitude. It may not make them change their minds ... such people KNOW they're being confrontational, that's what they've CHOSEN to do ... but giving a little back to them shows, at the very least, that you know what their game is.

As for Constantine ... something that most people now are unaware of, is the nature of the Roman Empire he inherited from his mentor Diocletian. Prior to Diocletian's reign a plague had ravaged the western part of the Empire (including the environs of Rome, as well as much of the north African coast, which was the "breadbasket" for Rome and much of Italy). The infrastructure crumbled. Diocletian himself attempted to set things right but was only partly successful; one of his policies was to invest heavily in the eastern Empire, which had not been so badly affected. By Constantine's time the cities of the east had become the Empire's industrial and economic engine.

By this time, also, Christianity ... mostly in the form of Gnosticism, as well as other semi-mystical movements like Marcionism and Montanism ... had become very popular among the eastern urban intelligentsia. These were the teachers, the merchants, the respected leaders of the region; all educated in the Greek language and schooled in Hellenic thought. They held a great deal of influence over eastern commerce and industry even if the governmental administrators were almost all pagan Romans. Keeping up eastern morale meant, therefore, reaching the eastern urban intelligentsia. Diocletian had made some early half-hearted efforts to win them over, but they considered him a brutal warlord and weren't swayed. Moreover, a milder plague had gone through the east; not as devastating as what had happened in the west, it undermined whatever gains he'd made there.

Constantine, on the other hand, had been born in Naissus (in modern Serbia), Moesia province, and was thus considered "an easterner." (Granted, Diocletian himself was from Dalmatia, not far to the west, but in classical Rome, Dalmatia was considered part of the "native Roman" sphere and associated with the west, rather than the east.) This gave him some appeal to other easterners, which others hadn't able to exploit. During Diocletian's reign the eastern capital of Nicomedia had become ascendant; Constantine developed contacts and influence there which he would take advantage of for the rest of his career. Even while he campaigned in wars against other imperial contenders, Constantine always kept this eastern "back-channel" of support, and it served him well.

Overall, the result of this was that the east became pivotal not only to the fortunes of the Empire as a whole, but it was also Constantine's personal power-base. He needed to become master of that region ... not only militarily, but he also had to build loyalty there. Thus, once he became sole emperor, he re-instituted policies that Diocletian had attempted to use to win over the east ... which worked better for him, personally ... and he found additional avenues to exploit.

One of these was to declare tolerance for Christianity. It really is just that simple ... the Edict of Milan (313) was pure political expediency for Constantine.

What amazes me is that so many people find this so difficult to believe. But think about it ... politicians doing expedient things to enhance their authority and their personal power-bases? Nothing could possibly be less surprising than that!