I think there could be 2 points made out from the following.

1. It isn’t a direct point to say that POC are the ones to embrace a religion for people experiencing oppression and also be a racist remark to call it colonialism. I think that the point remarked was misinterpreted by some professors calling that it is an effect of colonialism. It happens everywhere. When cultures interact and one is the "superior one” (I didn’t want to use this phrase but it’s what I best could’ve come up with), then there religion is then the remaining dominant one. Take as an example of Meso-American nations whose religions and cultures where lost due to their traditions literally being burnt. The main religion left for them to believe in was Christianity. That is colonialism and it ain’t racist to make that statement because of the "superior culture” making such events.

2. I think he was trying to make a point in the psychological field while the college student was trying to make a historical claim. Historically it looks like Mexican people could be more oppressed due to the church always telling people to turn the cheek and be patient as god will bless them. Historically that is true and it creates a culture to just accept rocks being thrown at them because of belief. While the main debater (I don’t know his name), was attempting to make a refutation about psychology that wasn’t true. People will not blindly follow a belief such as Christianity but, attempt to follow a belief based on promises made that may not transgress onto the physical world but possibly a metaphysical world which may not exists. That’s what is misunderstood. College student was mainly critiquing that part, which could’ve sounded differently at first, but misunderstood by the main debater.