[r9etb]

I just think it’s inconsistent to have, for instance, celebrations of Christmas and Easter when (apparently) no character practices Christianity.

Well, I don't know about that. True, they don't go to church, or show any outward religious trappings.

But if you look at what Rowling's protagonists stand for, it's pretty clear that they're portrayed as doing Christianity, whereas modern Christians all too often do not.

[b9]

When you think of what it takes to conjure a patronus, it’s almost like Rowling’s referring to the power of prayer. The patronus will only appear when one replaces fear with pure joy.

[Tax-chick]

But if you look at what Rowling's protagonists stand for, it's pretty clear that they're portrayed as doing Christianity,

Yes and no. As others have noted in this thread, there's a strong element of, "The end justifies the means," in many plot situations. The "Unforgivable Curses," for example, become, not "forgivable," but not even worthy of mention, when performed by a "good" character.

It's true that it's a desperate struggle for survival, where moral confusion is more likely than not. I'd hesitate, however, to describe any character overall as "doing Christianity."

[Maigrey]

What it is showing is that, even with the "ends justifying the means" is that there are failings of the main characters, breaking their own personal moral standards to achieve the ultimate goal of stopping Moldy Voldy.

Personally, I would call that the basest form of integrity: doing what is necessary to achieve yout goal, regardless of personal cost.

Harry was willing to go to Azkaban, and as he showed, willing to die, to achieve his goal, regardless of personal cost. And, when he did use the unforgiviable curses, he was, if you could do such, gentle with them, until he came across The Carrows insulting Prof. Minerva. Then, he did what was needed to stop them against her.