Well then, with all due respect, you'd be wrong. Any monk is a fundamentalist by definition.
Not strictly true. The definition I have of fundamentalism here is: "The interpretation of every word in the sacred texts as literal truth"
Buddhism doesn't operate out of blind faith like Christianity. Buddhists, lay and monk, test Buddha's theories to see if they actually hold true. If they find that they hold true they accept them. It's even in the original teachings, to paraphrase; the Buddha said "don't take my or anyone's word for it; try it yourself and see if it works, and if you find a better way that's cool. Keep asking questions."
Even the Dalai lama said that the texts should be changed if science proves them unlikely (can you imagine any of the mono-theists saying that? "we're changing the new testament because we found out virgin births are not possible"). As I said, it's a progressive belief system, which tends to weaken the argument that Buddhism has a sustainable core of fundamentalism.
Also, there is no real 'literalism' in Buddhism. Take reincarnation: some Buddhists believe in it, but also many don't, and that's ok. No one gets burnt at the stake for it. There are lots of interpretations.
Of course, there are always individuals with fundamentalist attitudes; it's part of their personalities, but that's true of all people in all walks of life.
And if dedicating your entire life to a supernatural belief system isn't zealotry, then I'm confused
The core of Buddhism doesn't belief in supernature either (there are no gods like there are in the mono-theistic religions, for example.), though some traditions do allow for supernature, such as the Tibetans, though, if we want to get into it, one could argue that Tibetan Buddhism isn't 'pure' Buddhism because it's syncretic with the local shamanistic mystical traditions.
Besides, who
cares who was at Buk's funeral?
There's no need to...
...deify him ;)
and i just thought of another Buddhist phrase
" don't try"
but then yoda said that too!