Here's another instance of how society and law are slowly evolving based on the recognition of human and animal rights. But it's always interesting when it clashes with religion. I don't see how religious leaders can really claim that slitting an animals throat and letting it bleed to death is "humane" (despite reading about Shechita and Zibah). I agree with the stories final quote:
"The method at the time the rules were written was probably the most humane way of killing an animal, but of course that has changed."
But the big issue is that it opens a huge religious dilema. If you can re-interpret the religious text for one rule, doesn't that mean you can re-interpret all the rules of a religious text? The resistance is understandable since the text has the highest authority and if it comes from God, how can you question it? But a truly strong religion should be able to evolve without compromising the faith it is based on.