RigVeda is a single source of our great antiquity and still it is not fully revealed. We often quote from it as authentic as we have a complete understanding of RigVeda. But truth is that we have only partial understanding exactly like those six blind persons who were engaged in identifying an elephant and every one touching the different body parts of the elephant: each claimed he has an authentic perception of the elephant, but differently. However, for the last 100 years or so we have a great dig at RigVeda, the area which was preserve for few earlier. And we have come to some conclusions to which have a broader consensus among most of the scholars.
There was no caste system in RigVedic period. The famous Purush Sukta is discredited as later inclusion by linguistic evidences (shabda pramana). Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism don't believe in it as well. Why should Sanatana Dharma continue this practice?
There is no concept of Astika-Nastika, Avatara or of Ishwara (the Supreme Lord) in RigVeda. A position to which Lord Brahma, Lord Shiva and Lord Vishnu have equal claim as different Puranas and other scriptures tell us. Buddism and other revolted against it and consequently termed as Nastika. But they heavily draw from RigVeda.
My contention here is not to respect alone but to integrate as well. If possible Hinduism would be a force in the world to reckon with. Would the divisionary forces within Hinduism allow to happen this- a broader concept of Hinduism.