What's so 'controversial' about the Indiana atheist bus ads?

The Indiana Atheist Bus Campaign had its bus ad rejected by Bloomington Transit on the grounds that it violated transit rules. How? By being "too controversial." Well, there's a lot of disagreement about atheists and their messaging tactics, even within the atheist community, so let's see what all the fuss is about. Here's the ad they wanted to run right here:

Wait. That's it? "You can be good without God"? This is controversial?

Sadly absent from any of the local coverage of the issue that I've seen is the acknowledgment by someone -- anyone -- that if they can find one single nontheistic human being who is "good," a person who is kind, or charitable, or loving, or all of these things, then the argument that the ad violates transit rules would be exploded. And surely, there is one atheist in Indiana who might fit that bill. I imagine we can solve this whole issue by merely bringing this one atheist to the transit offices and having them make pleasant small talk for about fifteen minutes. Problem solved!

Right?

Well, maybe not. Maybe I have the wrong idea about what "controversial" even means. I'm going to fire up the ol' Mac OS X New Oxford American Dictionary and see what it says.

controversial |?käntr??v?r sh ?l; -?v?rs??l|
adjective
giving rise or likely to give rise to public disagreement : "years of wrangling over a controversial bypass."

Complicates matters some, doesn't it? If the actual definition of controversial merely implies disagreement, we hit a wall. Even if the kindest atheist in the world were to give a kidney to an employee of Bloomington Transit, they can all continue to insist -- despite the evidence -- that the truth of the statement that one can be good without God is still in dispute. They can do this whether they mean it or not! By resisting reality, the phrase remains "controversial."

As the ACLU of Indiana is correctly arguing [PDF], "controversial" is far too vague a term for making such distinctions as to what is and is not acceptable. It seems to me that just about any advertisement for any product will include claims that are disputable, sincerely or insincerely. Doesn't that mean that all bus ads are likely controversial?

Not so fast, you say. The clause says "too controversial." Whether or not Dial soap really makes everything better is a matter of small potential controversy, but say that atheists are not evil bastards, well, then you get the villagers up in arms, parading their pitchforks and brandishing torches. If enough Indianans take issue with the assertion of atheist amiability (and I assume plenty do), then you may have something that is, in that community, "too controversial." But too controversial to whom? To the angry villagers? To the staff of the transit office? Again, it's incredibly vague.

But it's entirely possible that the vast majority of Indianans, or at least Bloomingtonians, think like Amanda:

"You can't be good without God. You can't," said resident Amanda Delaney.

I'm going to guess that she hasn't tried, or even met someone who has. That would be too controversial.

*  *  *  *

Update: Jerry Coyne puts it well:

. . . I don’t see much that’s inherently controversial about “You can be good without God.”  It’s simply true. Yes, it may be inflammatory, but who can doubt that the statement is a palpable fact?

Lots of atheists are good (I’m one!!!).  The bus slogan is about as controversial as saying, “You can help people without God,”  or “you can donate money to charity without God.”

And Coyne includes this local TV news coverage, which offers nothing new in terms of news, but keeps one from having to read too much, 'cause reading is hard.

*  *  *  *

Related Posts:

• In new bus ads, Seattle Atheists bet that religion hasn't enslaved your mind
• Atheist bus ads: Stop over-analyzing them and get on with your life
• Third Commandment, LLC: Pennsylvania law prohibits blasphemy in company names
• Mainstream and secularist media react to New York Times atheism front-pager