Devotional Song to Ganesh

I was procrastinating studying this morning and I ended up listening to a devotional song to Ganesh. These appear to be a translation of the song's lyrics.

I was wondering what Roman deity was the equivalent of Ganesh. I would guess Minerva. But I didn't find any authoritative-looking sources saying this. What I found instead was discussion about the nature of Hinduism--whether it can be properly considered polytheism or not. Some said it was polytheistic. Some said it was monotheistic. Others said it was something else. 

The most lucid summary of the discussion was here, by Rick Walston, associated with an organization called Columbia Seminary. He explains religious taxonomy plainly and straightforwardly and comes to measured conclusions about how Hinduism can be classified.

To me--no one has to agree with me--but, to me, most of the types described by Professor Walston require belief in assertions that extend beyond what's knowable. Is the separateness of the seven billion human consciousnesses an illusion that masks the fact that we are all manifestations of some deeper unitary consciousness? Or, from a material perspective, is there a deeper unity from the fact that we are all consciousnesses that emerge from the same star stuff? Maybe most importantly--what makes people so sure that the most fundamental level of reality is somethingness rather than nothingness? (And by the same token, vice versa?) 

These are all worth thinking about, but because they are ultimately unknowable, it seems excessive to have firm or rigid beliefs about them (and especially excessive to get angry about them!) For purposes of compassion, it is important to remember my relatedness to other members of the human race, but that doesn't mean that I ordinarily think of myself as merely an aspect of a single organism called humanity. Moreover, just as you can't privilege one body in space as being "stationary" and another body as being "in motion" it is not clear that you can privilege one part of reality with greater 'realness' than another part of reality. You don't ascribe greater 'realness' or 'independence of existence' to parents than their children, though the children are clearly derived from their parents. Similarly, on what basis do you privilege star stuff with greater reality than the people or consciousnesses that seem to emerge from it? If there were a deeper, unitary consciousness, based on what reference point would it be 'realer'? Again, I don't mean that people who believe in such things are necessarily wrong. I only mean that it's not knowable.

So, I start from what is ascertainable, which is--to me--that people, animals, things (all nouns?)--have a certain divine quality about them (a mystical quality about them even when thought of as purely material), and there are no knowable grounds for asserting that this divine aspect comes out of some deeper underlying unity.  

Thus, I think polytheism is the most cautious and rational theism.