I just read Harry Potter 1 and 2. I did not read them for the same reasons I read ie Robin Hood, Little Mermaid and Pinocchio etc. I was not expecting them be morally corrupting, and 'wokinizing' the movie version. However there was one glaringly huge case of it in book 2. The thing that bothered me was how book 2 was different from the movie. In many cases it simply changed things and the target of the scene so speak for no reason. IE in the match malfoy got to be a seeker. He was an inept null when it came to playing. The problem was the bludger ball was cursed to only go for Harry over and over. Harry had to stay in constant motion. However the ball (snitch) sat right above Malfoy. The overcoming challenge was Harry got hit in the arm smashing the bones and Harry had to get the ball with one arm. 'That's it'. However in the movie they made it into a scene where Harry and Malfoy battled it out chasing the snitch neck and neck. Why was this needed? The original story was more impactful. Malfoy was a null and Harry got literally obliterated by the bludger. Then it was about who cursed the bludger in the book, in the movie it was about Malfoy. There were MANY cases of this in the second movie. However in the first it was really just about condensing 2 or 3 scenes down to one just to make the movie manageable. The striking case that was OBVIOUSLY and FLAGRANTLY moloch worship was in the second book they had something called the 'mandrake'. The mandrake was a child that grew under the ground and grew a plant out of it's skull. If killed and chopped in to pieces, a soup of it would cure ANY aliment. The only 'distress' with dealing with them is if when killing them you heard their cries, you died. So you had to muffle your ears while killing them. It was no doubt they were described as babies. However in the movie they were portrayed as disgusting roots kind looking like a creature.