Buber's I-Thou and I-It
The tensions in Snyder v. Phelps can be understood through Martin Buber’s concept of I–Thou and I–It relationships. In Buber’s view, genuine human connection occurs when we relate to others as whole, complex beings. This is the I–Thou relationship. By contrast, I–It relationships reduce others to objects or roles, often ignoring their humanity. In this case, the sacred values held by the Snyder family, Westboro Baptist Church, and military communities reflected distinct worldviews, each rooted in what they saw as morally or spiritually inviolable.
​
The Snyder family viewed the funeral as a sacred space for mourning and honoring personal sacrifice. Veterans and service members often see such rituals as public affirmations of duty, unity, and national respect. Westboro Baptist Church, on the other hand, believed their protest was a divine command to warn the nation, even if it meant disrupting moments of grief. Each side related to the other through different relational lenses. The Snyder family experienced the protest as a violation of their grief, while Westboro, in focusing on theological doctrine, failed to acknowledge the full humanity of those they confronted.
​
Buber’s framework helps reveal how the case was not just a legal dispute about speech but a deeper failure of mutual recognition. Each side struggled to see the other as a full “Thou.” Instead, grief was reduced to a political stage, and protestors were seen as cruel intruders. This breakdown in relational ethics underscores the emotional and moral weight of the conflict—one that legal reasoning alone could not fully resolve.
Baumgartner's "Blasphemy as Violence"
The case of Snyder v. Phelps can be understood through Christoph Baumgartner’s argument that blasphemy may function as a form of symbolic violence. In his article “Blasphemy as Violence,” Baumgartner explains that certain acts or expressions, though not physically harmful, can deeply injure individuals by violating what they hold sacred. These injuries occur when speech undermines a person's moral identity or desecrates symbols tied to dignity, grief, or communal belonging. In Snyder, the Westboro Baptist Church’s protest at a military funeral was protected by the First Amendment, but for many observers, it felt like a moral assault. The protest targeted not only the Snyder family’s mourning but also widely shared values around military sacrifice and national honor.
​
Baumgartner’s framework helps explain why the protest sparked such widespread public outrage. For the Snyder family and the military community, the funeral was a sacred space of remembrance and respect. The presence of inflammatory signs disrupted that space in a way that felt not just offensive but deeply violating. Baumgartner argues that this kind of symbolic injury goes beyond emotional discomfort. It threatens the moral standing of individuals and communities by degrading what they consider inviolable. Although the Supreme Court ruled in favor of free speech, Baumgartner’s perspective highlights the limits of legal reasoning in capturing the full weight of symbolic harm. His work invites reflection on how law and society respond to acts that offend the sacred, even when those acts are constitutionally protected.
Paden's "Interpreting the Sacred"
The Snyder v. Phelps case can be productively analyzed through William Paden’s framework in Interpreting the Sacred, which explores how religious systems organize meaning through symbols, practices, and boundaries that distinguish the sacred from the profane. Paden emphasizes that what is considered sacred is not inherently so, but is designated as such through social processes that mark certain people, places, acts, or events as set apart, inviolable, or morally binding. In this view, sacredness is less about theological content and more about the social and symbolic structures that define what must be protected, honored, or kept separate.
In Snyder v. Phelps, multiple competing systems of sacred meaning collided. For the Snyder family and the broader military community, the funeral of a fallen soldier represented a sacred civic ritual—a moment that affirmed values such as honor, sacrifice, and communal grief. The funeral space was marked as symbolically set apart, insulated from political disruption. For Westboro Baptist Church, however, sacredness was tied to public obedience to what they believed was divine law. Their protest, while offensive to many, was an expression of what they viewed as a higher religious obligation. Each group operated within its own symbolic framework of what was sacred and what was in need of protection or correction.
​
Paden’s approach helps illuminate why the conflict generated such intense emotional and legal debate. The dispute was not merely about speech but about the collision of symbolic worlds. The Westboro protest, interpreted through one lens, was a religious act; through another, it was a desecration. The Court's ruling, which upheld Westboro’s speech rights, prioritized the neutrality of the state in the face of competing claims to sacredness. Paden reminds us that sacred categories are always contextual and contested, and Snyder v. Phelps reveals how fragile and deeply felt those categories become when they clash in public space.