Relying on Snopes is a lot like relying on Wikipedia. There is a lot of good information there but it is by no means an authoritative source for everything. There is no problem including them as a source, but when they are your only source the answer loses potency.

@Chad If you'd like I could source their sources as well. This particular answer on their page has a lot of them -- and if we're going to discuss unreliability of single point primary sources, WND has zero room to throw stones.

I am not saying that the original claim has merit or that your answer is wrong. And yes using the original sources from snopes would be better than just citing snopes. Just as using the sources from wikipedia is better than citing wikipedia.

Agree with Chad. Also, always check the sources. In many cases I've found them to be completely unreliable (or totally absent).

Snopes says "the original story reported by Spring Hill Home Page is accurate" and the Spring Hill Home Page says "My child was required to write ‘Allah is the only God’ ” springhillhomepage.com/maury-parents-angered-over-islam-unit

@DavePhD Yes, I mention that in the second part of the answer. They also mention that "many of the details are lost" and provide the context.

@Shadur The OP's question is "Did the assignments include writing a declaration that Allah is supreme?" and snopes is affirming that the article reporting "My child was required to write ‘Allah is the only God’ ” is true. How can you say "claim is false" under these circumstances?

@DavePhD The claim is clearly false because this was not "writing a declaration that Allah is supreme". This was a test to see whether students have learnt that text as part of their study of that religion. Knowledge of that text does not require belief in that text, and the tests were clearly phrased to avoid questions of belief. Whilst I was at school I learnt the poem "The Owl and the Pussycat", but my knowledge of that text did not mean I was required to declare a belief that an owl and a pussycat went to sea in a beautiful pea-green boat.

@Graham obviously no one can force people to actually believe something. They were required to WRITE "Allah is the only God", not believe it. It fact, in the photograph the student wrote "!Lie!" above the statement "Allah is the only god, Mohammed is his prophet" that she was required to write. springhillhomepage.com/maury-parents-angered-over-islam-unit

This answer would seem to be simply: wrong. The various schoolchildren were made to write it. (The sensational article in question says "recite"; it seems to be "written" not "spoken".) Were students “forced to recite 'Allah is the only God'” in Tennessee public schools? Could not be more straightforward, Yes.

This answer appears to be more a general rant against sensationalism (complete with boldface) rather than a Skeptics-like statement of what did or didn't happen.

-1. The answer is a prime example of argument from authority fallacy. You took - as proof - the official statement from an organization in authority, which, to boot, has a vested and biased interest in the claim being false (for obvious reasons, being a bureaucracy, they don't want scandals of any kind). The fact that the claim is largely true in spirit (see competing answer) shows why such answers (100% based on argument from authority) are basically useless at Skeptics.

Again, "Did the assignments include "writing a declaration that Allah is supreme ..."" It seems the situation could not be more straightforward, "Yes". Y-e-s. The problem with the answer here, is: the answer basically says: "Yes, they wrote it. Now, here's a lot of my opinion and discourse on issues surrounding that." it's quite remarkable it has upvotes on a skeptics site. For example, "This isn't the first time a similar claim has been made, and likely won't be the last:" - what does that mean? So the next time this happens in a school, there will again be articles about it? So - - ?

@DavePhD: Really depends on the context of "require", doesn't it? E.g. if students are taking a test in their religion course, and one question is "What does the Shahada say?", then obviously a correct answer requires them to write that. So where's the problem?

@jamesqf I never said there was a problem. I think it's important to learn about Islam. (The Virginia situation where the students were forced to pose for yearbook photos wearing Hijab is a problem, but that's a different matter).

@JoeBlow The literal interpretation you're insisting on is so misleading that IMNSHO it qualifies as false. The course material shown in the competing answer presents the Shahada as an example of Arabic calligraphy, with no English translation, and asks students to copy it as an exercise in calligraphy. This is not what is normally meant by "forced to recite [a statement of faith]".

? right - for those on the one side of this argument the complaint is: "in a hand writing exercise ...... a hand-writing exercise! ...... they forced kiddies to write the single most intense, contentious, religious-political phrase in existence." Don't understand the comment: yes, you're correct (astoundingly, beyond all belief) this was presented as a "hand-writing exercise". The idea of presenting any hyper-political text ("jews suck!" "vote Trump!" "palestine!" whatever) as a handwriting exercise is, sure, the basic complaint in the (ranty, bizarre) original article.

@Joe Blow: Really depends on whether any of those kids (or indeed, the teachers) understand written Arabic, doesn't it? I could copy Taoist sayings in Chinese, Hindu scriptures in their orthography, or for that matter Biblical passages in Hebrew or Greek, and I wouldn't have a clue what they said.

@jamesqf however, Islam SE says there is a problem with students unbelievingly writing Shahala "please try not to misuse it and use them at unholy circumstances" islam.stackexchange.com/questions/29148/…

@zwol the "exercise in calligraphy" was in Virginia (but from a World Religion book). In Tennessee, it was in English, and unrelated to calligraphy.

@DavePhD It's still failure to accept the use-mention distinction, though, isn't it?

@zwol the county director of schools, Chris Marczak, said there was "confusion around whether we are asking students to believe in or simply understand the religion" so the highest official says that distinction was not made clear. springhillhomepage.com/maury-parents-angered-over-islam-unit

@Paul Draper: A fact, such as "required to write" is meaningless without its surrounding context. This seems a good example of how to lie by telling the exact truth, just not all of it.

@DavePhD I think you misunderstand my point. Not only was the child not required to believe it, they were not required to state it as their own belief. They were being asked what someone else believes, and "Allah is the only God" is the correct answer to what a Muslim believes. To avoid that would be to fail to teach the subject. When the children learn about Christianity, it would be an equally unforgivable failure of teaching if they did not learn the Catholic Credo. It's entirely clear that at no point were they required to state it as their own belief.

@DavePhD The school had no confusion about that distinction. The fact that religiously intolerant parents can't tell the difference between "this is what someone else believes" and "you must believe this" does not imply a failure of teaching, only a failure of parenting.

@Graham Now you're repeating what I said: ("They were required to WRITE 'Allah is the only God', not believe it.") So many comments, you didn't even notice. (:

@Shadur the quote in your answer "Earlier this year (2016, the Tennessee General Assembly passed a bill to require that any inclusion of religion in textbooks, instructional materials, curriculum, or academic standards be for educational purposes only and not be used to proselytize or establish any religion or religious belief" was in response to what happened the previous year. Instead, you are using it to deny what happen the previous year.