Choosing a clerical domain adds spells; it does not remove spells
In D&D 5e what choosing a domain does is add additional spells and domain specific abilities that are over and above the general cleric kit. Unlike some previous editions, where choosing A removed your ability to do B -- prohibited magic schools for wizards 3.x D&D and 2e AD&D1 for example -- this edition does not penalize a domain choice. What is "lost" is access to the other domains' domain specific features as levels progress.
Said concisely: the choices you make for your class and sub class(domain) add features, they don't subtract. (Not for any class).
Your DM may like the fit and feel of previous editions, and the addition / subtraction concept, but that is at odds with the design model for 5e. Have a discussion with your DM if you'd like to make that point. It may be worth making this true statement: nowhere in the D&D 5e rules so far are you penalized for choosing a cleric domain. The only "penalties" are in opportunity costs: if I choose this domain, then I can't later get that other domain's neat feature. The generic clerical features are available to ALL domains.
In this related question -- [can a cleric of an evil god use healing spells?] -- 1, the answer is emphatically Yes.
- There is an exception to this "all of your choices cause additions"
general principle: in Volo's Guide to Monsters, a few of the
monstrous PC races subtract an ability score. That has nothing to
do, however, with cleric domains.
Why limit raise dead, and more powerful raise-dead-type spell?
(This is from a DM-centric point of view). When the characters don't have easy access to the raise dead style of spell, the risk of death is more present.
Rich Burlew (author of The Order of the Stick) has made the case that, from the narrative point of view, the higher level raise-dead-type spells make certain characters or villains virtually unkillable (in terms of the longer campaign perspective) since with enough connections and/or spell components the character comes back to life once again.
True Resurrection, without a doubt. It's literally impossible for a mortal character to ever be completely out of the story because of its existence. Actually, all forms of resurrection are kind of a pain in the ass, though the other versions have roadblocks you can throw in the path. But because True Resurrection exists, every character death is met with, "Well, they could still come back!" forever. (Reply to Morty)
Making that spell type scarce, hard to have access to, or non-existent increases the tension and danger in a campaign. Character death becomes something significant. In D&D editions where there are no death saving throws, no bleed to -10 hit points, or other ways to rescue a character who has fallen during combat, keeping those spells available make plenty of sense -- if the group is averse to permanent character death generally. The "at 0 HP you are dead" from 0th edition, BECMI, and 2d Edition AD&D made character death final for the player, without access to raise dead, etc.
The desired theme and feel of the campaign will inform the choices a DM makes in that regard. I recommend that you have a talk with your DM about that as well, so that you are both on the same page.
@Dacromir has provided a useful insight on why limiting access to raise dead and resurrection spells can make sense within the D&D-5e framework.
1AD&D 2e "specialist wizards" could not cast spells from the "opposing" school of magic per an 8-point diagram in the book...