Define “humane”. Don’t use your own definition.
You don’t know what you’re talking about.
This is not inhuman, it just doesn’t fit into your fancy pants. This is no more painful than stunning.
Your cavalier dismissal of religious law is instructive. True religion does not bend to your whims, nor should you ask it to.
Agreed. Technology has advanced quite a lot since the middle of the iron age, and what may have been one of the more rational and humane methods of slaughter thousands of years ago is by no means so today.
There truly is no comparison in terms of safety (for both humans slaughtering the animal as well as the animal) or in terms of pain between the use of modern captive-bolt stunners to incapacitate and render insensate and the archaic proscribed methods of slitting an animal’s throat and letting it bleed to death while conscious.
Early Judaic law was heavily influenced by the practice of neighboring tribes in the holy land, which also had religiously proscribed practices of slaughter. Much as the biblical prohibition against drinking heathen wine, the strict dietary and slaughter laws of the ancient Hebrews encouraged them to remain apart from their neighbors and it’s likely that the priesthood codified these proscriptions for that very reason.
As for your comment about faiths changing, as Jesus demonstrated with the Samaritan woman at Jacob’s well, such proscriptions may serve a purpose for a time, but times change.