I tried really hard to understand why anyone would think your position “racist”. I gave up. I just don’t get it.
The Bible speaks unambiguously about different groups of people defined by their heritage (and participants in special covenants with God.) Abraham’s descendants are distinguished from all others and Abraham was promised special favor for them. The Children of Israel were clearly called God’s chosen people. There are Jews and there are Gentiles. Was it “racist” for the Children of Israel to only marry those who also shared in the Sinaitic Covenant? Was it “racist” for Joshua’s army to conquer Canaan and destroy the tribes which opposed them? Was it “racist” for the Jews to distinguish between the circumcized and the uncircumcized?
There are also in the scriptures stark contrasts of blessing and lack of blessing. There are the sheep and the goats. There are the wheat and the tares. There is also Jacob being loved and Esau hated. Shocking?
Indeed, none of this is about race in the modern sense. At most, some distinctions are more like the past and now largely archaic definition of the word “race”: simply a “variety”, a classification of a group.
If Dr. Swamidas’ position is “racism”, then the Bible must surely be extremely “racist”. (Obviously, it is not.)
I remain flabbergasted that charges of racism ever came up. I suspect that there was a bandwagon hysteria which took hold as people were flailing about, trying to find a conveniently dismissive label to put on a idea that left them feeling shaken (because it so easily threatened their own viewpoint which they found comforting.) When a prominent “authority” assigns an outrageous label, many followers will tend to echo the pronouncement.