Your basic premise is mistaken. Objects cannot be good/evil/heroic or otherwise. Only individuals can have these traits. These movies may promote individuals to these kinds of behavior, but inanimate objects cannot in and of themselves be good or evil.
Having said that, I agree with your basic take on the two movies.
IMHO W.K.
I know which my kids will be allowed to read/watch.
I believe another reason is that LOTR has a far more defined contrast between good and evil. In HP, to a large extent good and evil are both severely watered down concepts. A lot more "relativism" in HP, IMHO.
Not that I'm really an expert on HP.
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...
Another possibility is that Tolkein was an unabashed Catholic (although many HP-bashers say that Catholics aren't actually Christians....), whereas J.K. Rowling's religious leanings aren't public knowledge. Churchmanship is apparently a saving grace. (FYI: Rowling is a practicing Anglican -- a rather uncommon thing in the UK).
Finally, the geek factor. There is not as yet a vast contingent of HP geeks, and there is a whole host of LOTR geeks -- many of whom, I wager, are among the loudest HP bashers. One cannot discount the geek factor -- it lends a tremendous amount of heat and venom to any disagreement. I actually suspect this is the major bone of contention: to an LOTR geek, any avenue of attack against the interloper is allowed.
Monster, Inc. is a far better movie.
Tolkien believed that truth could be conveyed through myth. So, he set out to write a myth of epic proportions, and have his plot guided by truth -- truth in an ultimate spiritual sense. The idea of good vs. evil is obvious, but less obvious are lessons such as: the weakness and hence corruptibility of of the human heart; the idea that "even the smallest of persons can change the world" (as Galadrial told Frodo); the value and strength of true friendship, and true friends; the belief that no matter how difficult a situation or a path, there is a benevolent power that guides all of our paths; the idea that ultimate power can only be wielded for good by the most humble (the point of the book and movie that only a humble hobbit, the least assuming of creatures in Middle Earth, can carry the burden of Ringbearer without being corrupted by the power of it); the parallel truth that only the humble are best suited to possess power; the idea (which is greatly needed in our day) that sacrifice is necessary if evil is to be confronted, but there is a nobility even when evil momentarily overcomes good.
Not to ruin it for those who have only seen the movie, but have never read the books, but in "The Two Towers," there is a resurrection (and did anyone else notice that as Gandalf fell into the depths of Moria, he fell in the image of a cross?).
"Harry Potter" was a good movie, but it lacked any communication of truth. The wizards and witches of Hogwarts wield power, but to what end? For what are Harry and his classmates in training? Do wizards exist in Harry Potter's world for some great purpose? Do the exist to benefit mankind, or as agents of some Higher Power for the betterment of the world? It's never clear. It appears that "Harry Potter" possesses power for power's sake; unlike "Lord of the Rings," where power is used as part of a titanic struggle to defeat an all-consuming evil; and yet the possession of power is dangerous, and is not to be coveted (unlike in "Harry Potter").
I almost hate to contrast "Potter" with "LOTRs" because, in truth, there is no comparison. "Harry Potter" was written as a clever story for commercial purposes. "Lord of the Rings" was written as a means of conveying truth. Therein is the greatness of Tolkien's mythology, and weakness of "Potter."
HP encourages children to believe that there are short cuts for the special few who are non-muggles (did i spell that right?). in one sense, HP becomes a recruiting tool for the democratic party since it gives unsuccessful kids a cosmology where they can view their failures as consequences of their birth as non-achievers (i.e., muggles). The fault is not in themselves or in their choices, its in their blood.
Lord of the Rings presents all magic as the evil that it is, while Potter makes the absurd pretense that there can be good magic. By doing so it leads directly to the embrace of evil. - It provides 'good' that does not come from God.
LotR bashing however, on the part of the religious faction, would start huge flame wars and I believe, by and large, the religious group of FR is far more considerate than to fan such flames.
I think that most people don't automaticly link magic (as in LOR) with witchcraft.