Why can't you castle out of check?

Then I've been doing it all wrong. 

An aside, one thing I sometimes forget is that you can however castle the rook to safety (if otherwise allowable).

The reason why ?

A King can “hide” … take to the hills at anytime before the enemy presents himself. Once confronted, by the sword with capture- there is no free, magical disappearing act to rely on. It’s time to face the music. No hocus pocus. 

I once knew a King who could step outside the board. Disappear through the back door. As in all magic - the trick is in the reappearance.

nah the king can move out of check but you cant move the king if you want to castle to try and get out of the check since thats illegal, just sidestepping is legal 💕

the king can move, it just cant move out of check by castling when its checked 💕

yes

when you are in check, you have to get out of check by

1. cover

2. run

3. eat the piece that is making check

4. checkmate the other person

You can't castle when in check or pass the checked square or get in check after done castling because castling = safety for the king

For point #4, you have to block a check with a piece which happens to, say, deliver a double check, or capture the piece with checkmate, so one of the first three points must apply.

Also, the text in bold seems contradictory - castling is meant to be safety for the king, so that cannot be the reason why castling is not allowed in such situations.

Someone debates u on the rules, you could always just angrily slam ur hand down in the center of the board, start yelling and shoving pieces up ur aiyss. U gonna be the most feared person in over the board, win all the games and nobody gonna wanna play u any more.

i didnt  know that you cant castle out of check  becase ive never been in that situation.

Probably no one wanted to tell you that you got the queenside castling wrong. KIngside or queenside, the King always moves two squares to the side and afterwards the rook jumps over it. 

I'm surprised nobody has asked why. Why only 2 squares on the queen side. Shouldn't it be 3 so that the king/rook orientation would be the same for both sides after castling. 

(Why don't have the pawns wings and can fly over the board to promote to a queen immediately? SCNR)

After castling the king/rook orientation is exactly the same, if you take the perspective from the king. And yes, on OTB games you always have to touch your king first if you want to castle. It makes a lot of sense if you see it as an preemptive escape from the middle ranks to the side.  

In my experience with newcomers to chess they're always confused about the difference between kingside and queenside castling. But if you explain it straight away, king steps to squares aside, rook jumps over it, they don't have any problem with it. 

Yes, but why not move the king 3 squares on the queenside so the orientation would be the same. In other words, the king would be one square away from the edge of the board for either side, instead of 2 squares away on the queenside. 

Good point about the pawns though. I think that power of flight was given to Pegasus, or the knights. So pawns don't need that power. They are sneaky enough as it is with their en passant and queening and whatnot. 

In physics or evolution biology you would call it a frozen accident. Why does our universe consists of matter instead of anti-matter? It just happens very shortly after the big bang and drives on since. Why is the DNA of all living beings coded by exactly those four amino acids? Could have been others, but it just happens in the phase of abiogenesis. 

Same her with the castling rule on the queen side. It just evolved and players just accepted this as the main rule. Maybe they played your suggested variant centuries ago, but only this one became the dominant variation.

not my move yet . . .

I've seen many blitz games, over the board, where players have queenside castled by moving their king 3 squares, instead of the correct 2. And when it happens, neither player seems to notice.

I think they do it from a lack of knowledge ... and possibly because doing it that way makes sense, in the way you pointed out.

(In a tournament game, of course, that would be an illegal move. )

Maybe they figured moving the king two squares can be acceptable, but three, that's just crazy. Or more likely, someone lost a coin flip. 

you can't castle if any square the king moves through during castling is under attack