You are taking my posts too negatively. No one blamed Brahmins for anything. Especially not in this era.
However, it is true that
in older times the Brahmins codified the law, so they must have taken care that law did not discriminate against any particular section of the society, which it did. And the biggest beneficiaries were Brahmins and Rajputs/Kshatrias.
Hinduism is an ever evolving religion, and we should always be open to new and right changes.
About your query, whether anyone will accept a priest born in a non-Brahmin family - No. And that is simply because the concept of caste defined at birth is deeply ingrained.
And no, I do not have any links or pictures to back up my claim on Brahmins protesting that particular law. It was 30 years ago, and barely made any news. But in the same breath, you should also understand that their protesting a law that merely appears to be liberating the poor may not necessarily make the Brahmins villains. They had their own valid reasons to oppose the law, which in effect made Brahmins discriminated against.
About the bold part, I hope you can see that my posts are completely open to legitimate interpretation. If you simply read what you want to read, then who am I to stop you.
About definition of Brahmin, my question was more of a statement. We both know what a Brahmin is. Or may be you will understand more, after you read that book I recommended. It is not expensive, try the hard cover if you can find.
India Unbound - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
