as the courts do not intrude into the determination of the doctrinal issues.” Ibid. In appropriate circumstances a court may apply neutral principles of law to determine disputed questions that do not implicate religious doctrine. Ibid. “ ‘Neutral principles’ are wholly secular legal rules whose application to religious parties or disputes does not entail theological or doctrinal evaluations.” Id. at 414-15, 593 A2d 725. Defendants have couched their argument in terms of the Free Exercise Clause. They contend, in effect, that jurisdiction over this employment dispute would unconstitutionally interfere with Seton Hall’s right freely to exercise its religious beliefs. See Hernandez v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 490 U.S. 680, 698, 109 S.Ct. 2136, 2148, 104 L.Ed.2d 766, 786 (1989) (<HOLDING>); Kedroff v. Saint Nicholas Cathedral, 344 U.S.
holding that docs may place reasonable limitations on an inmates right to the free exercise of religion including a requirement that the inmate register his religious affiliation holding that religious exercise is any exercise of religion whether or not compelled by or central to a system of religious belief and that the use building or conversion of real property for the purpose of religious exercise shall be considered  religious exercise holding that a prisoner stated a valid free exercise of religion claim where he alleged that prison officials refused to allow him to receive certain religious books holding that corrections officers mockpreaching and espousal of religious views did not constitute a substantial burden on inmates free exercise of religion recognizing a religious institutions right to free exercise of religion