I would agree with the first paragraph, but again, that has no bearing on this case. It may play into his complaint that the school is teaching about Islam while ignoring the school also teaching other religions, such as Buddhism. They are clearly a Christian family. It's spelled out clearly in the legal documents I've been referencing the whole time. The teacher was Christian too. Yet didn't have a problem with it. Apparently neither did the presumed other service men and women with kids in that school who completed the same assignment.One would tend to believe Mr Wood has seen in color the side of muslims you haven't witnessed.....And add to that the Woods are a Christian family.... Big trouble for a Christian Marine...
The Woods' daughter was forced to profess and to write out the Shahada in worksheets and quizzes. The Shahada is the Islamic Creed, "There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is the messenger of Allah." For non-Muslims, reciting the statement is sufficient to convert one to Islam. Moreover, the second part of the statement, "Muhammad is the messenger of Allah," signifies the person has accepted Muhammad as their spiritual leader. The teenager was also required to memorize and recite the Five Pillars of Islam.
Those legal documents I mention do not lead a reasonable person to agree with your and the father's idea that this girl was "forced to profess and to write out the Shahada in worksheets and quizzes". She simply defined the Shahada. That's like saying that because you know the definition of Jihad, you've declared it yourself. I, you, we all, were forced to memorize and recite (in homework, because that's where this happened) all kinds of crap in school. That's a silly argument. That memorizing the answers to a homework assignment is akin to accepting the person the assignment is about as their spiritual leader.
The court agreed when they ruled:
https://www.thomasmore.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Wood-Petition-to-Print.pdfUpon our review, we conclude that the challenged coursework materials, viewed in the context in which they were presented, did not violate Wood’s First Amendment rights, because they did not impermissibly endorse any religion and did not compel Wood to profess any belief.