Quite simple. Simply contrast the ways in which sorcery is presented in the two novels.
In LOTR, there are maybe 3 wizards on the entire planet, and any spell casting which occurs, if any, is minimal.
In Harry Potter, the whole thing is about a school for children wizards.
Basically, in LOTR, the whole realm of occult sorcery is minimized, while in Harry Potter it is excessively glorified...
In addition the 'wizards' in LOTR are clearly meant to represent angelic beings sent from God, one of which has become evil, and another has turned away from his duties, leaving only Galdalf following the will of 'God'. Actually there are 2 other 'wizards', but they are way off in the distance, and apparently not involved.
"Quite simple. Simply contrast the ways in which sorcery is presented in the two novels.
In LOTR, there are maybe 3 wizards on the entire planet, and any spell casting which occurs, if any, is minimal.
In Harry Potter, the whole thing is about a school for children wizards.
Basically, in LOTR, the whole realm of occult sorcery is minimized, while in Harry Potter it is excessively glorified..."
There's also a bit more to it than that. The nature of the sorcery in Harry Potter is different from that in LoTR. To wit, the wizards in LoTR are not really wizards at all, they are Maiar (lesser angels) cloaked in human flesh. In other words, the wizards employ a circumscribed form of their own angelic power, and only for the mission outlined by Eru (Elvish for God), though three of the five wizards eventually succumb to evil. Likewise, the evil dark lord Sauron is another fallen angel. The only other magic we see in LoTR is elvish "magic" and even Tolkien is at pains to explain that it really only seems magic to those who are not familiar with its intimate workings. What we would call magic is generally closer to extreme skill of the elves in that they are closer to their world, being unfallen and the first children of The One, in contrast to the weaker fallen second children, men. Tolkien does drop hints that in lands controlled by evil one sees "sorcery," which is basically practitioners of evil being granted power by Sauron. Indeed, the Nine started out as "sorcerors" millenia before events narrated in LoTR.
In the Harry Potter books and movie, OTOH, the magic employed is specifically magic as we conceive of the world, i.e., human beings manipulating the preternatural world by their own powers for their gain. This is a sharp contrast to the "magic" of LoTR, which comes either from angels using their rightful powers or a simple closeness to creation.
All of the above aside, I think that it's overreacting a bit to cite the Harry Potter books as the first step towards your kid sacrificing the neighbors' cat to the dark lord Satan. Now, classical Christian theology has always held that the only way in which magic might be carried out is with the assistance of fallen angels. With such a thought in mind, then LoTR fits into a more Christian view, whereas Harry Potter falls on the other side of the aisle. But then, if we are to look at the ideas of "white" and "black" magic in a pre-Xian, "Natural Law" environment, say your pre-Xian fairy tail, then we can take a view in which there is room for both good and evil supernatural agency. After all, one might say that the priest is operating as a good supernatural agent when he transforms the elements into the body and blood of Christ (if you're Catholic; but since most HP denigraters are Evangelical Protestants, the whole sentence is fairly moot). To sum up, one can portray a supernatural battle of good and evil as long as it is recognized that it is, sans Xian revelation, and incomplete picture.
I agree. And, taking it a step further, LOTR stresses the importance of the 'lesser' beings or those not imbued with extraodinary powers, stepping up and going the distance. Relying only on their own courage and heart to get the job done for the greater good, with no thought of reward.
That's where the heroism comes in. Potter has none of it.