I'm having a hard time understanding the following sentence because of by example:
This is because religions could never have got started, let alone
thrived, unless for the influence of men as fanatical as Moses or
Muhammad or Joseph Kony, while charity and relief work, while they may
appeal to tenderhearted believers, are the inheritors of modernism and
the Enlightenment. Before that, religion was spread not by
example but as an auxiliary to the more old-fashioned methods of
holy war and imperialism.
I'm not sure if I should treat it as in lead by example. I don't think so but that's the closest thing I can come up with.
Assuming that it's like in lead by example, what I understand from the sentence is that before the Enlightenment, religion was spread not in a way to be looked up to/modeled on etc. but in a way that is auxiliary to ….
Best Answer
I think what he means is this: if religion is spread "by example", it means that non-believers see the good example of religious people, and willingly join the religion, and that's how it grows.
He's contrasting it with "holy war and imperialism", in which people may be more or less forced or coerced into joining a religion.
It is similar to "lead by example", which means to behave in such a way that people want to follow you, as opposed to using punishment, intimidation, or coercion to make people follow you.