I'm curious as to how quoting people is propaganda? In essence my goal was to say "this is what a sector of the population thinks, here's some quotes showing why they think that".

Surely there is merit in sharing conclusions and reasoning for those conclusions?

What puts these personages in the same sector other than some superficial correlation in views as illustrated by pithy quotes rather than actual policies advanced? To group Dewey, Marx, and Huxley is completely fatuous, as well as pairing humanism with socialism. And what is the conclusion based on these quotes? This is begging the question. As Voltaire said, "A witty saying proves nothing."

I've been pondering your reply since I saw it yesterday. I'm bothered a great deal by "bumper sticker politics", or the "reducto ad absurdum" that seems to have taken over most political conversations.

Aside from a master's thesis, I'm unsure as to how I ought to address the philosophical claims made by the above authors.

Then it sounds like there's no point to be made, you're just cherry-picking not only quotes, but cherry-picking random historical figures, in the hopes that the reader will concoct a point. This isn't even bumper sticker politics. This is Rorschach test politics.

This sounds like you are attempting to make me responsible for the conclusions of others. While the thesis sounds interesting, I'm not in a position (either time or interest) to try and expand on the thesis that many others have set forth. I'm not cherry-picking (it wasn't my intent, at the very least), only reporting on the conclusions reported by others.

But there are no conclusions mentioned here at all, only disparate quotes hinting there is some point. You clearly shared these links and quotes to make some point, thus it is on you to elucidate, or otherwise the sharing was for naught.