The unbelieving world has a nasty habit of throwing any objection, regardless of validity, at the Bible, and hoping something sticks. Because of the emotional impact that racism has, especially in our modern culture, one objection that does stick, at least in the minds of those unprepared for it, is the fact that the Bible has historically been used as a justification for racism.
Now, given that there are people out there who will use the very much monotheistic Bible to justify henotheistic religions like Mormonism, it is wholly unimpressive to claim that the Bible has been used by certain groups. It is a sad fact that men with motives will always seek ways to twist the Bible for their own selfish agendas. Many Jews were doing it in Jesus' day, many so-called Christian groups have done it since Jesus' day, and yes, even up to this very day, there are some disgraceful racists who continue to use the Bible to justify their anti-Christian views. In fact, the irony is Critical Race Dogma is now being accepted by many churches. Critical Race Dogma is a very racist doctrine, yet because the victims of that racism are white, even the fact that the Bible is being cited in its defence will not raise an eyebrow among most Bible critics. At least, not until the culture flips, and anti-white racism is finally seen as the abomination it is. At that point, anti-Christians will very likely point to anti-white racists and say "see? The Bible was used to justify Critical Race Theory!"
But as it stands, racism against white people is the only form of racism that isn't culturally despised. Anti-black racism (thankfully) is. And so in spite of the fact the Bible is clearly an anti-racist book, critics continue to claim "The Bible was used by racists!" What they won't tell you, however, is that unbelieving white supremacists at the same time used to bash it for not being racist enough.
One such white supremacist was Ernst Haeckle, a German zoologist who really did not like the Bible. During Haeckle's time, it was believed that there were 5 races, with caucasians being the "highest of them all" (1). Haeckle clearly agreed with this belief, as he wrote "All these five races of men, according to the Jewish legend of creation, are said to have descended from ‘a single pair’—Adam and Eve, and in accordance with this are said to be varieties of one kind or species. … The excellent paleontologist Quenstedt is right in maintaining that, “if Negroes and Caucasians were snails, zoologists would universally agree that they represented two very distinct species, which could never have originated from one pair by gradual divergence." (2). Clearly, in Haeckle's mind, the idea that all human beings are descended from one human pair would be problematic. Why? Well because that would make white people and black people as equal as if they had been born as twins! Which, as it turns out, is a semi-common occurrence.
So, Haeckle is wrong for three reasons:
It's hypocritical. If you believe all life descended from a single living cell, you should have no problem with the idea that all humans descended from a single human pair.
Modern Evolutionists actually do believe all living humans are descended from a single pair. The scientific evidence is that powerful, they were forced to concede that ground (while, of course, still rejecting the Biblical account).
Unlike Haeckle's precious Evolution, the Bible is divinely inspired history, which is corroborated by external evidence.
Of course, Haeckle is far from the only racist who hated the Bible for its non-racist theology. And for good reason, as both in his time, and leading up to it, Christians had been a thorn in racist sides ever since the concept of separate human "races" was made up in medieval times.
One example is William Wilberforce, a Christian who contended that the dominion mandate extended only as far as the animal kingdom, and did not grant human beings the right to subdue each other. He noted that kidnappers are listed as those who will reside in the fires of Hell (1 Timothy 1:10), and that Paul the Apostle urged Philemon to release his escaped slave, Onesimus, and accept him as a brother instead (Philemon 1:16). Wilberforce's efforts eventually lead to the passing of the Abolition of the Slave Trade Act, 1807, which criminalised the slave trade within the British Empire.
Another example is Harriet Beecher Stowe, whose novel "Uncle Tom's Cabin" is credited with having turned the North so firmly against slavery. In her book "Woman in Sacred History", she wrote "It has well been said that nations struggling for liberty against powerful oppressors flee as instinctively to the Old Testament as they do to mountain ranges. The American slave universally called his bondage Egypt, and read the history of the ten plagues and the crossing of the Red Sea as parts of his own experience. In the dark days of slavery, the history of Moses was sung at night, and by stealth, on plantations, with solemn rhythmic movements, reminding one of Egyptian times." (3).
Those who know a little history know that some racists have historically used scripture to justify racism. Those who know a lot of history know that the Bible has also been used to combat, and in many cases successfully defeat racism. The question we must ask, then, is who is right? We have already seen the answer! The Bible is a blatantly anti-racist document when taken in its proper context. A racist (or a sceptic trying to make the Bible appear racist) may well be able to cite a few verses, but even the most seemingly racist passages in the Bible are not addressing race. Indeed, Moses, the man who wrote the Torah, married an Ethiopian woman (Numbers 12:1), and when Aaron and Miriam got mad about this, God got angry with them (Numbers 12:9), and gave Miriam leprosy for it! Can this same Moses be called racist? Or is it not more likely that commands to Israel to stay separate from other nations were due to contrary religious practices? Given that whenever inhabitants of the other nations converted, they were considered equal to ethnic Jews in every legal way, I'd say the latter is more likely the case.
And so you see that the mere fact that some racists use/used the Bible to justify their stupid beliefs falls apart when you do your due diligence. Whether you are a well-trained scholar, or some teenager with a social media account, you should be ashamed if you publish this argument. Anyone who uses the Bible as a justification for racism forfeits the right to call themselves Christian, and anyone who uses such heretics as proof that the Bible itself is racist forfeits the right to be taken seriously.
References
1. Hunter, George - A Civic Biology, 1914
2. Haeckle, Ernst - Natürliche Schöpfungsgeschichte, 1875
3. Beecher Stowe, Harriet - Woman in Sacred History, 1873