At the University of South Florida, the Atheist Student Alliance was subjected to bigoted attacks when they applied for reimbursement for expenses. There was nothing unusual about such a request — every campus group does it — but for some reason certain members of the Student Government Senate decided to use this opportunity to express their horror that there was even an atheist group in the first place. They argued that such a group was so "dangerous for society" that their expenses shouldn't be paid.

The existence of people like this isn't surprising, regardless of how some have insisted that atheism "isn't a civil rights issue." Usually, though, bigots like this either aren't in positions of power or, if they are, are smart enough to not voice their bigotry so publicly. What motivates a person to regard an entire class of people as "dangerous" or "immoral"?

Sen. Charles Sherrard, who is majoring in political science, voted against the bill. "I disapprove. These kinds of organizations are dangerous for our society," Sherrard said.

Source: The Oracle (via Friendly Atheist)

Just so I understand this, are atheist organizations "dangerous for our society" because they promote hatred of and bigotry against religious believers — by, for example, trying to deny them equality funding and consideration for their student groups? Or are they "dangerous for our society" because they try to promote scurrilous accusations against religious groups, like for example accusing them of being dangerous even though they haven't done anything wrong? I'm really confused here about how and why an atheist student group on any university campus could be considered "dangerous for society."

Then again, maybe they are merely "dangerous" because Charles Sherrard "disapproves" of and disagrees with them. That would be a pretty broad category, though. What if Charles Sherrard accused a Jewish or feminist group of being dangerous for our society — can't you imagine the outcry? Do you really think he'd be allowed to remain a part of the Student Government Senate? That seems unlikely, but apparently it's quite acceptable to say such things about atheists.

Sen. Keenan Arodak said SG should approve the funding request because disapproving it because of the group's beliefs is illegal.

"We as Student Government members cannot vote this down just because it is the Atheist (Student) Alliance and (because) we disagree with its philosophy," he said. "This is not only a state and local law, but it also has been ratified by the Supreme Court of the United States."

As Hemant pointed out, this is the wrong reason for supporting the funding of an atheist student group. To understand why, just imagine someone saying "we can't not fund the African-American Student Association because that would be illegal." Wouldn't you strongly suspect such a person of being at least a little bit racist, but is worried about being caught at discrimination? If the only or even primary reason why an atheist group is given equal treatment is to avoid a lawsuit, then that means that the student government wants to discriminate but can't find a way to do so legally — and that means that the student government is rife with anti-atheist bigotry.

Do note that I'm not accusing them of actually being so bigoted — I don't know how many are anti-atheist bigots aside from Charles Sherrard and whoever accused atheists of being "immoral." I'm simply pointing out that "it's illegal" is not a very good reason for not doing something immoral. It's arguably better than immoral behavior, but it won't help anyone if legal justifications for immorality can be found. Students need a student government that isn't implicitly bigoted against atheists, Catholics, blacks, Jews, or any other group. Students shouldn't wonder if their student government is just waiting and watching for some excuse to start putting that bigotry into practice.

On the plus side, though, you can't invent good marketing material like this. People often wonder why atheists feel any need to organize at all and comments like Charles Sherrard's provide several good arguments in defense of atheist groups. I'd use quotes like his and some others from that meeting in advertising and marketing material for years and years to come — I'd make sure that people on campus that there are lots of Charles Sherrards out there who hate atheists and atheism, who would like to see atheists treated as second-class citizens, and that it's necessary for atheists to come together and work for their civil equality.