Why is Harry Potter Evil But Lord of the Rings Heroic?

That's not what my dictionary says. Wicce (feminine) and wicca (masculine) just meant witch and wizard back then, not wise. It does come close, but only in terms of an evil wisdom, and words in other languages coming from the same route translate into craftiness, cunning, and guile. In Latin the root ends up coming back to us as victim.

You know, hardly the sort of behavior that the pagans themselves wouldn't distrust before conversion....

I disagree with your assessment of Tolkien's use of magic in LOTR. It is not terribly clear in LOTR, because none of the Men characters are magic users, in particular. However, there are many cases of men and hobbits using magic.

For instance, in both The Hobbit and LOTR, Bilbo and Frodo both use the Ring to become invisible. In The Hobbit, the dwarves use magical maps and keys to enter the Lonely Mountain. Aragorn uses the Palantir to gain knowledge, which is obviously a magical device. Merry's sword, a Numenorean blade, is able to kill the Witch-King precisely because of magical properties implanted by human smiths. In the Silmarillion, the Numenoreans are obviously great magicians. Many similar examples can be found.

Magic in Tolien's world is not portrayed as being inherently evil. It is merely a tool in itself, capable like most tools of being used for good or evil. Some forms of magic, like the One Ring, are evil of themselves and cannot be used for good. But that is what sets the Ring apart so greatly and why some characters find it hard to believe that it cannot be used against Sauron safely. They would not have this difficulty if all magic was evil and dangerous for men to use.

That reality is this: in the real world there is one set of rules for the truly great and another for the simply average. In the face of that, which do you want to be?
Excuse me? Great people lie, cheat and break all the rules?! Who are your heroes? Does this mean you think the Clintons are "great"? Please think what you're saying.

Great men don't need to obey rules, eh? Were our founding fathers great men, then?

As a matter of fact, I can name several examples. I can remember the "Jordan Rules" in which the NBA hardly ever called fouls on Michael Jordan. Then there was Michael Irvin in the NFL who used to push off the defender practically every time he caught a pass, which was rarely called. Then there was the great spitballer Gaylord Perry. Not that these people are heroes, but they exemplify the reality of which I speak. Who else? The founding fathers? Well, they only broke all of King George's rules. So there you go.

It's not that great men don't need to obey rules; it is that rules are often bent in order to accommodate them. There is a big difference.

You'd let your kids do drugs, rape, abuse, and terrorise others all with your monitoring and encouragement?

Let me get this straight. Letting one's kids watch Harry Potter is the moral equivalent to letting them do drugs, rape, abuse and terrorize? You are way out there, guy. Your house must be a laugh a minute.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.