Can the King move in the line of attack of a Rook when the Rook is Pinned to its own King?

Anyway, I think it should be, because the Rook cannot move to the Squares of the File and/or Row that it Technically can.

And where do you Vote for?
Do you think that it is a nice Rule if the King has Permission to move in the attack Square of a Pawn, attack line ( or Square for a Knight ) of a Minor( is only Bishop in this Context.. )- and Major Piece if the Pawn or Piece is Pinned to its own King? 

Inspirated out of current World of Chess. 

The king can never, ever, move into check....is that what you are talking about?   Nice has nothing to do with it, rules are rules and have evolved over centuries....the King does not have permission to do squat....I really don't understand what you are talking about.  

Hmm... the name of this topic should actually be "Very Vague and Unclear Question". What ever you mean by this, it really does not make any sense. If you mean if a King can move into check if that same King was pinned, the answer is no - whatever the situation is, a King may NEVER move into check, even if it is pinned. And you're saying it would be "nice" if that became a new rule? I object to that statement, because that would create a huge contradiction in other parts of the rules of chess - namely, when a King is in check, that King must react to the check IMMEDIATELY. And if that "nice rule" of a King that's pinned may move into check, he CAN'T get out of that in any way. So not only was what you're saying vague, it is also simply ridiculous.

...Oh, and WHY do you keep adding capital letters to normal words? Only Germans do that, and you have a Dutch flag next to your name, just like me. Do I use capital letters with normal, no name words? Nope.  Also, the word I marked red, "inspirated", is actually written like this: "inspired". Just a friendly spelling tip.

I think I know what he means:

example (diagram editor doesn't work): white rook on d1, black pawn on d4, black king on d8, white king on e4.

His idea is that if XX. Ke3 or Ke5, it is in check, but if the black pawn "takes" it, it would put the black king into check and he could be taken the next ply.

However, after "dxe3"/"dxe5", Black has already won the game, so you surprisingly didn't discover an inconsistency in chess rules. :)

basically if a king moves into the attack line of a piece that's pinned against it's OWN king (the piece can't take take the king without exposing it's own king to check ) so is that STILL check? that's the question:D

the answer is it IS still check despite the piece being pinned

I don't think it's a silly question becase I used to wonder that aswell. 

I first had to think about this, and than I thought: '' yea, he is right, Black is the one who takees first, just like taking a Bishop or so.
Than the Threat isn't Check anymore.
The Threat is Capturing the King.
And ofcourse Capturing the King has a Higher value than Checking the King.

It's like the Difference between a Swordsman and an Archer.
A SwordsMan may never run to the General, or the General has to flee or be Protected by his Comrades.
But if a Swordsman Runs on the General, and by doing that an Archer can at the Meanwhile hit the General of the Swordsman in his Hearth with an Arrow, than the Swordsman is lost here, as Roman Dzindzichashvili would say.

Probably the reason that I Questioned this Rule is because I have a Defensive Mindset rather than an Offensive one, self-Explanatory  

Thank you, yes, that's what I mentioned.
It was because I have this Mindset of '' Defense before everything '' like Tigran Petrosian ''.
That's why the Tactic ' counter-attacking ' is one of my main oversights on a ChessBoard, because I am bussy with finding a Defensive, but not Passive move.
I am always looking to the Potential Threats my Opponent can make, first.
Prophylaxis.

But yes, actually it is Offense first I know.
Chess favours the Offensive General, Objectively seen, but not always Psychologically seen  ! 

One fool can ask more questions than a thousand wise men can answer.

@ Defence4Gizchehs: I still think your interpretation of checking a King is very OFF. Like I said in my earlier comment, in whatever situation on the chessboard, a King may NEVER go out of check into another check. And in the, um... vague question of yours, you're talking about moving a King into check and even capturing him, aren't you? If not, then I truly have not a single idea of what you were really talking about. It all sounded really vague and even a little cryptic to me...

@Defence4Gizchehs: Perfectly sensible question. You are not the first to wonder: Seirawan explicitly points out in his tactics book that the answer is no.

nO.Please be relevant, helpful & nice!

I for one am delighted that someone finally brought this important point up.

Now that we're aware, we could start a movement to change the rules.  We could protest.  Perhaps form a drum circle, maybe one day even put on a music festival.  Then FIDE would have to listen, wouldn't they?  If we were loud enough?

No Death Metal, though.  It really harshes your mellow.

No.
A Sensible asked Question, asked with a too orthodox - or whatever Word is needed in this Context - MindSet.