Most of us have loved watching Duck Dynasty. But that does not include Rolling Stone Magazine.

screenshot of Rolling Stone’s article Duck Dynasty is often called things like “wholesome,” “a modern-day version of Mayberry,” and a show with “good morals.” But Rolling Stone thinks otherwise. After the final episode of the show aired on March 29, the magazine bashed it over the head with a whiffle ball bat.

Throughout the show, the Robertsons stuck to their guns and religion, living a life of convictions despite cameras always being around them. They showed us how to hunt ducks, love each other, and pray continually, always ending episodes with a prayer at the dinner table.

They prayed the way they thought best. Phil Robertson, patriarch of the family, wouldn’t have it any other way.

“So they would just have me saying, ‘Thank you, Lord, for the food, thank you for loving us, amen,” Phil told Sports Spectrum in 2013. “So I said, ‘Why would you cut out ‘In Jesus’ name?’ They said, ‘Well those editors are probably doing that. They just think that they don’t want to offend some of the Muslims or something.’”

The Robertsons enjoy each other as they wrap up the last shots of Duck Dynasty (source: Facebook)

Well, Rolling Stone took issue with all of this when they wrote:

“No show in television history has ever sucked quite like this one. And if the TV gods are willing, no show ever will.”

The magazine called the Robertsons “hypocritical Christian-right hillbillies” and said the end of the show “gives us one reason to celebrate 2017.”

“The show represented the pre-Trump Christian right’s fantasy of itself,” the magazine says. “A family of hairy but God-fearing bootstrappers bowing their heads in prayer over the dinner table.”

First, what’s wrong with being hairy? Second, what’s wrong with being “God-fearing”? And third, what in the world is wrong with praying before a meal?

Nothing. That’s what.

And Rolling Stone would be better off following the good morals the Robertson encouraged on their show.

Maybe the writer at Rolling Stone who wrote this article wouldn’t be so angry or divisive if they did.