Discover the Snyder v. Phelps Case Study

Blasphemy! - Snyder v. Phelps Case Study is a website designed for REL204: Blasphemy!'s final project.  

​

This project examines the Supreme Court case Snyder v. Phelps (2011) as a contemporary incident that provoked widespread public attention and raised complex questions about symbolic offense, sacred boundaries, and the limits of free speech. At the center of the case was the Westboro Baptist Church’s protest at the funeral of Marine Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder. The church, known for its theologically driven and inflammatory public demonstrations, picketed the funeral with signs containing messages such as “Thank God for Dead Soldiers” and “God Hates F*gs,” claiming that military deaths were divine punishment for the United States’ moral failings. This protest sparked national outrage and led the soldier’s father, Albert Snyder, to sue the church for emotional distress. The case eventually reached the U.S. Supreme Court, where the justices ruled in favor of Westboro Baptist Church, citing the First Amendment’s protection of speech on matters of public concern.

​

Framed within the course’s broad definition of blasphemy as “a symbolic offense against the sacred, or what is deemed inviolable” (Robert A. Yelle), this case offers a critical lens through which to explore both religious and secular sacreds. Competing notions of the sacred were at stake: for the Snyder family and many Americans, the funeral of a fallen soldier was a solemn, sacred ritual that symbolized personal sacrifice, national service, and communal grief. For veterans and members of the military community, the protest was perceived not only as an intrusion on private mourning, but as an affront to core values such as honor, duty, and selfless service. Military funerals often function as public expressions of civic gratitude and institutional respect, and disrupting them called into question how society defines and defends its most deeply held collective ideals. For the Westboro Baptist Church, however, the protest was a religious obligation, rooted in their reading of scripture and seen as a necessary rebuke of national sin. The courtroom became a space where these divergent sacreds collided—the dignity of grief and military honor on one side, and prophetic religious speech on the other.

​

​This case study explores key course ideas like what society considers off-limits or disrespectful, how certain people or events are treated as pure or sacred, and what happens when those boundaries are crossed—especially in ways that feel offensive or unsettling, even if they’re protected by law. It considers how sacred boundaries are constructed, who is authorized to transgress or defend them, and what happens when legal protections clash with deeply held moral and cultural values. Through Snyder v. Phelps, we can better understand how accusations of blasphemy—broadly conceived—reveal tensions not only between religion and law, but between competing visions of what must remain protected in public life.